March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 1,244 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics38,374
Posts544,014
Members14,391
Most Online1,131
Jan 21st, 2024
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
#521064 08/19/18 09:24 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
2-piper Offline OP
Sidelock
***
OP Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Quote:
Well now . . . let's see what Thomas DID say about slow vs fast-burning powders. To summarize the facts of the tests conducted by IMI:

"They involved the firing of many thousands of cartridges by a team of nine experienced shots of varying build, shooting under a wide variety of conditions with guns of different types, weight and boring. The cartridges were all loaded to give the same velocity to the same shot charge, though by means of powders of various rates of burning. The shooters did not know what they were firing, but were merely required to give marks for recoil. They were unanimous in assigning the lowest recoil to the cartridges with the fastest-burning powder, the dynamical effect of which was checked throughout by electric accelerometers built into the stocks of the guns, and their conclusions have since been widely confirmed." Gough Thomas, "Shotguns and Cartridges for Game and Clays", p. 155.

That seems to be a pretty complete description of the test in question. I'm sure more thorough than a hillbilly from Tennessee or a jack pine savage from the North Woods of Wisconsin can do. But if Mr. Miller would care to conduct a test of his own--with witnesses, a group of experienced shooters, etc--I'm sure we'd all eagerly await the results.

But one question for our resident hillbilly: What difference does it make to a powder company whether they promote a fast-burning powder or a slow-burning powder? Both have their advantages. As noted here, the slow-burning powder produces a lower peak recoil, which some people may feel is advantageous. On the other hand, you use less of the fast-burning powder to produce the same velocity, which results in cost savings to the individual choosing that powder for reloading. So both--for different reasons--are going to have their fans. And powder companies all seem to offer a wide variety from which to choose, for whatever reason the reloader decides to make his selection.

And it probably should be noted that in Hatcher's formula for measuring recoil, the powder weight is multiplied by 1.75. So although it's far lighter than the shot charge, it's a more significant factor than just the weight of the powder compared to the weight of the shot.
Edited by L. Brown (Yesterday at 11:03 PM)


Quote:
Well Miller . . . you ARE wrong when it comes to dynamic/measurable recoil. You don't need as much fast-burning powder to produce the same velocity with the same shot charge as you do slow-burning powder. AND THAT IS FACTORED RIGHT INTO THE FORMULA USED TO COMPUTE RECOIL. Science . . . not what anyone feels or does not feel. Thus, the slow burning powder is already starting out in a hole when it comes to recoil. I'll admit it's not a particularly deep hole, but science does show that the slow-burning powder produces more measurable recoil than a fast-burning powder. Excellent example from the Alliant website:

12ga, 1 oz load, AA hull, Win 209 primer, CB 1100-12 wad. 1200 fps. 16.9 grains Extra Lite--near the top of Alliant's fast burning powders--will get you there. Takes almost 3 more grains of Green Dot (19.8) to match it. And you're now counting on what people FEEL (or what YOU think they should feel) not only to compensate for that scientifically established deficit, but to produce less recoil with the slower burning powder than the faster burning powder. And where would we find your scientific evidence to support that belief??

As for the accelerometers, you must be assuming (and you know what happens when you ASS-U-ME) that the shooters were checking the results shown by the instruments. Why would that have to be the case? Would seem more likely to me--I admit that I'm also assuming--that a powder company employee is checking and recording what the instruments show, making sure they're working, being reset if necessary, etc. If that's the case, then the shooters don't know what they're shooting, and if they don't read the instrument, they don't know what it's recording.

But easy enough to prove you're right--if what you believe is that it's chiseled in stone that a slower-burning powder in two loads of equal shot charge producing equal velocity will produce less recoil. Show me the results of a test proving that to be the case. And if we were to hold you to the same standard that you wish to hold Thomas, then you would have had to be present at the test to verify that you have first hand information on how it's carried out and on the results.
Edited by L. Brown (Today at 05:45 PM)


Well, Well, Well Larry, Ain't that just Peachy. You have put so many words in my mouth which I NEVER said & do not believe its simply Amazing. I have always contended here on this forum that any change in recoil which could be consistently "Felt" could also be measured. In fact I had made a statement to that affect which you, in trying to prove me wrong Asked me point blank how I could relate this to these people which Thomas spoke of could feel less recoil from the shells loaded with faster powder. My reply was that it was because the loads with slower powder required a heavier weight of powder thus produced "Measurably" a heavier recoil. YOU flatly denied this stating the different in charge weight was not enough to make a difference. I suggested they may have used the heavier bilk powders for the slower
burning loads You Said NO this was not the case, but was unable to supply any specifics at all as to what was used. I then stated that without Data the tests were Worthless, & am still firmly convinced this is the case.

Now as to the shooters I Did Not say the shooters themselves read the accelerometers, but you did Quote Thomas as to the fact the guns used in the test were so equipped & checked "Throughout. The Shooters were told to give "Marks for Recoil" so they new what they were testing for. This prevents the tests being "Totally Blind" In fact though I don't recall having previously mentioned it I really cannot think of a way the shooters could have picked between the shells used IF it were indeed Blind.

As to the 1.75 time weight of powder you cited from Hatcher, you best pull General Hatcher's Notebook back off the shelf & dig a bit deeper. This figure was Specifically given for rifles of the .30-06 class . A figure of 1.5 was listed for rifles in the .30-40 Krag class & for shotguns generally a figure of 1.25, except if heavy loads were used in Short barrels then it might rise to the 1.5 mark. These are figures worked out as an estimate to take into affect the exit of the gases after the wads have cleared the muzzle. While the charge is accelerating down the bore the gasses from the burning powder fills the bore completely so they only move Half the distance as the shot & wads. The exit velocity of the gases are based mainly on muzzle pressure which is largely determined by burn rate & expansion ratio.

Volume of 1 inch of bore @ .729" = .417 Cu In. Volume of that Green Dot load will be in the vicinity of .200 Cu In. Thus if the charge travels 28" it will have expanded at the rate of about 58:1. Expansion ratio of the .30-06 wil be on the order of 6-8:1 depending on exact powder charge & barrel length.

"If" we shoot a 150 grain bullet from that 06 with 50 grains of powder then the powder makes up 25% of the total weight. Without actually weighing the listed wad so using a bit of estimation in that 1oz Green Dot load the powder charge is less than 5% of the total weight ejected. Even If we go with the full 1.5% figure it will change only a very small amount.

You see Larry while I may not have Touted it so much I have all along been using the criteria which you claim I am denying.

Whole Hilarious part is that these last two posts of yours which are fully opposite of what you have been shouting in the past actually fully proves what I was saying all along to be TRUE, & you're apparently so Ignorant you can neither see nor understand it.

My suggestion to you is stay with the fields you are qualified to speak about, If there are any, & leave Ballistics to those who have some knowledge of them.

As I recall it was Mark Twain who said "Always Tell the Truth & You Don't Have to Remember". I have tried to follow that rule & know what I have stood for for my duration here on this board & It Ain't what you are saying it is.

How does that strike you for a "Dumb Hill Billy". Incidentally you would not have know I was a Hillbilly, Dumb or Otherwise, except I told you. You might want to listen to the more important things I say as well. At least you did quote that statement correct, the only one I can recall which you did.


Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Originally Posted By: 2-piper

My suggestion to you is stay with the fields you are qualified to speak about, If there are any, & leave Ballistics to those who have some knowledge of them.

As I recall it was Mark Twain who said "Always Tell the Truth & You Don't Have to Remember".


Truth is only "fields" Larry knows anything about are the dreAm fields inside his head.

Now if you want to learn his hawg wash about how Mooslims are so lOving and kind then Larry Brown is your go to guy.


Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 934
Likes: 53
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 934
Likes: 53
Where is the "old" recoil thread??


Perry M. Kissam
NRA Patron Life Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 934
Likes: 53
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 934
Likes: 53
Wait. Could it be the thread immediately preceding this one?


Perry M. Kissam
NRA Patron Life Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
2-piper Offline OP
Sidelock
***
OP Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
"IF" you were following the thread on 800X powder it wandered off into discussing recoil. I stated there I was going to start a new thread on recoil.
Technically there was not an "Old Recoil" thread as such. I figured those who were following would pick up on the title.

For those who were not following that thread this is where this one originated from. I just wanted to get it off the original poster's discussion of 800X powder.


Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Well Miller . . . I guess you felt it necessary to start a new topic just so you could misquote me (and denigrate Thomas) multiple times. (Careful reading might have avoided those problems.) To wit:

I denied "the different in charge weight was not enough to make a difference." Nope. Never. Not once. I did refer to it as a minor consideration (multiple times, including in one of my quotes you used above) which it certainly is in comparison to shot charge and velocity, but I never said it never makes a difference. Obviously it does, because that difference can be measured. And after all . . . a headache may be only a minor consideration . . . but, on the other hand, it could be a brain tumor.

Thomas did not specify what powders were used; therefore, I could not specify either. Nor could you. But Thomas did state--and you even quoted him above--that "powders of various rates of burning" were used. That's the best either of us can do on that subject. I never suggested anything else.

I did not say the shooters did not know what they were testing for. Thomas may have been a Brit, but his King's English is pretty clear on the subject: "The shooters did not know what they were firing, but were merely required to give marks for recoil. Simple enough to do that while keeping it "blind". Tom Roster did the same thing in a "blind" test he conducted using three different steel shot loads, testing for lethality on pheasants. They were color coded for the 3 different shot sizes he tested. Similarly, in this test, even the powder company "officials" themselves wouldn't have had to know what the shooters were shooting. You hand them a green shell, a black shell, and a red shell. They simply report which had the most recoil. You simply record that by color . . . and it can be blind even from the people recording the data. Only those later ANALYZING the data know what green, black, and red mean in terms of the powders used. Is that blind enough for you? Sure is for me.

And exactly what is it that you've been touting all along is true? If you agree that it's quite logical that loads with faster burning powder recoil less than the same load with slower burning powder . . . then what the heck are you arguing about, and why do we need a new topic . . . other than so you can misquote and misrepresent what I've said? Even when you've got my quotes included right along with your analysis and misquoting.

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
2-piper Offline OP
Sidelock
***
OP Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Larry;
Unlike some I do not record my posts here. I do however have a rather good memory on many things. I do very well recall that I was taking the stand that if a difference in recoil could not be measured then I placed no validity in what people Claimed they "Felt". YOU point blank asked me to explain why in my opinion that in this test done by IMI & reported on by Gough Thomas (As I recall Thomas was not present at the test) that it had been a unanimous conclusion that the fastest powder gave the least recoil. I stated that in my opinion it was because the loads with the slower powder had a heavier charge & thus had a higher recoil which could be calculated or measured.
YOU Flatly denied this to be the reason. stating that the difference in the charge weight was not significant enough to make that much difference.
I then suggested that a 42 grain bulk powder may have been used in the slower loads. You again Denied that could even possibly have been the case, even though I could never understand why as neither then nor now could you say What Powder was used.

At that point it was stated that a represenative of IMI had carried these shells to a gun club as I recall, not a hunting ground & only Two loads was mentioned. There was absolutely no mention of any of these loads being fired in a gun with a special stock having an accelerometer installed, implication to me was the shooters actually fired them from their own guns. The report was based solely on that basis. There has been Absolutely NO mention of Thousands of shells being fired until this thread, Why did you never give us all the data you say you have until now. Did you finally come to realize there was just not enough info on this BIG TEST to bolster your viewpoint so you had to make up some to boost it along.

A member here at the time did scan in a copy from his Thomas book which bore out the details just as I have stated. I don't recall now the title of that particular book but obviously Thomas recorded it different at different points in time or You have made up this latest info. Thomas' Conclusion was that the only explanation he had was that the loads with the faster powder recoiled so "Fast" the shooter simply did not have Time to feel it. "HOGWASH"

As you stated earlier I do fully realize the old a
statement about what to ASSume makes out of U & ME, so I am trying not to assume too much. .Perhaps As you mhave so much INFO on this test you can tell us just in what matter the Accelerometer was able to verify the faster powder gave the less recoil. Now do Realize that if you tell us it gave a "Higher" reading for the Slow powder you didn't shoot your HERO Thomas in the foot, You centered him between the eyes, Remember HE stated the fast powder loads had less felt recoil BECAUSE they Recoiled SO FAST & You have backed him up in every Foolish & Stupid thing he ever said.

Me personally you see I fully believe that if these loads with the faster powder Truly gave the lesser recoil then the slower powder loads showed a higher reading on the Accelerometer, but that Would BLOW Thomas' theory Big Time, Wouldn't it Larry, or are you man enough to admit you have made a total Fool of yourself in this whole scenario for at least ten years or more now as you have done everything in your power to make me look kike the Dumb Hill-Billy I jokingly called myself. You have of course accomplished just the opposite.

As to the new thread, Don't get too carried away patting yourself on the back that you were actually the reason. The original thread was about 800X powder. I made some simple statement on that thread which was not that far off topic & then You jumped on me with both feet & things deteriorated from there. I started the new thread simply as a courtesy to the original poster of the other thread.

As to the Blind part not really worth making a big deal over, just a matter of a different interpretation of the meaning of blind. I did not deny that the shooters did not know which shell was loaded with which powder, wouldn't have been much of a test if they had would it. To me though IF they were shooting specially equipped guns & were told to mark the recoil then I do not refer to that as Blind. To me it would have been Blind if they had been handed two different colored shells & told to shoot them & make any comments they noted on them. "IF" then with any knowledge of what they were actually looking for they had Unanimously stated well I noted the Red ones Kicked less, that would have been blind. That as you stated is not however what occurred so we simply have a different definition of blind.

I did not say that I was in total agreement that recoil was automatically less with a faster powder you are again putting words in my mouth which I didn't say. It well could be that you loaded the faster powder with one wad & a slower powder which was bulkier & required a different wad. Perhaps 3 grains more powder was used with the slower powder, but the wad weighed 7 grains more to take up the space with the faster powder then the table would tilt toward the slower powder giving the less recoil as total ejecta weight would be less,

I have stood totally firm all through all of this that Recoil can be measured &/or calculated & that is what counts. Forget all this "Felt" recoil Mumbo-Jumbo. I still stand on this. I am well aware that many disagree with this, that's fine by me, but when one says the faster powder Kicks less & another says the Slower one does, I just go with which one shows the actual less measured recoil. Has always worked for me.




Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
I see Larry Clown resorting to some of the same tactics he attempted to get away with in the January 2107 "Lead and Condor Deaths" thread.

Larry got busted attempting to put words in my mouth which I never said, and he even went so far as to selectively (and dishonestly, in my opinion) edit the position and mission statement from the Audobon Society to bolster his false assertion about their position on the use of lead ammunition. When he got caught doing that, did he man-up and admit it? Hell no! Instead he attempted to blame craigd for leaving some words out of the same Audobon statement which in no way affected the point from Larry he was refuting. But the words Larry edited out absolutely and directly affected the false assertion he had made.

In the 800x Powder Thread where this brouhaha between Miller and Larry started, take a look at Larry's post #521009.

Link to Page with Larry Clown" post #521009

In the second paragraph, we see the results from Larry's precious test asserting that "The shooters did not know what they were firing, but were merely required to give marks for recoil. They were unanimous in assigning the lowest recoil to the cartridges with the fastest-burning powder".

But then, in the same post... in the fourth paragraph, we have Larry making this curious statement about the difference between shells loaded with both fast and slower burning powder... presumably with the same shot charge and velocities:
" As noted here, the slow-burning powder produces a lower peak recoil, which some people may feel is advantageous."

So once again, we have Larry expecting us to believe him, or even understand him when he is on both side of an issue. Then Miller busted him on his incorrect and false assertion in the same paragraph concerning a multiplier of 1.75 for powder weight in Hatcher's calculation for recoil.

Don't expect Larry to acknowledge that he provided false or conflicting information. That will never happen. If it ever did, we'll also be seeing threads about the best shot sizes for pigs that fly.



I'm not sure what Miller hopes to accomplish here, but I love it. I have learned that Larry can never admit when he is wrong even when the evidence is overwhelming or can be directly quoted verbatim. I'll bet Larry can go on for days or weeks attempting to twist what Miller says. And I'm just waiting for him to start attempting to discredit Miller because he is not a professional ballistician. That is what he did with craigd and I in that 2017 thread where Larry and BrentD clung to their junk science full of glaring discrepancies, to support their personal bias against lead ammunition use by deer and waterfowl hunters. In that thread, actual published extremes and very conflicting lethal blood lead levels in eagles didn't matter to Larry and BrentD. So why would actual measured or accurately calculated recoil energy matter now versus perceived felt recoil? If I shoot a big charging bear with a powerful rifle, and don't recall the kick, does that mean there was no recoil? If my own experience is any indicator, Larry may cry to Dave Weber in an attempt to get this thread locked. Then Larry's older brother King may jump into the fray with his support for Larry. Or Larry may repeatedly denigrate Miller, and then announce to us that he will be utilizing the IGNORE function to IGNORE Miller. If that should happen, Miller should be so lucky to have Larry actually keep his word about that too.

Just my opinion as always... based entirely on what I have seen here.


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 90
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 90
Do you guys not have anything else in your life more important to tend to? So much hate, energy, and time being spent on here to what end?

Always the same people, too.

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
To what end???

Why, just pissing you off is enough for me dhanks. And what did you do with your time before you started shedding all these tears here? Do you have anything to contribute about felt or actual recoil? I didn't think so.

And oh by the way... I thought you were IGNORING my posts like Larry Clown. Oh wait... you ARE. What a douche.

Originally Posted By: dhanks
Originally Posted By: Andyinlz
Any tutorials on the "ignore" function?

There are some folks here who aren't worth my time.

Thanks.


Unfortunately you have to click on the username you want to ignore, click view profile, then click ignore user. Three step process.


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard

doublegunshop.com home | Welcome | Sponsors & Advertisers | DoubleGun Rack | Doublegun Book Rack

Order or request info | Other Useful Information

Updated every minute of everyday!


Copyright (c) 1993 - 2024 doublegunshop.com. All rights reserved. doublegunshop.com - Bloomfield, NY 14469. USA These materials are provided by doublegunshop.com as a service to its customers and may be used for informational purposes only. doublegunshop.com assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. doublegunshop.com further does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. doublegunshop.com shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of these materials. doublegunshop.com may make changes to these materials, or to the products described therein, at any time without notice. doublegunshop.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. This is a public un-moderated forum participate at your own risk.

Note: The posting of Copyrighted material on this forum is prohibited without prior written consent of the Copyright holder. For specifics on Copyright Law and restrictions refer to: http://www.copyright.gov/laws/ - doublegunshop.com will not monitor nor will they be held liable for copyright violations presented on the BBS which is an open and un-moderated public forum.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.33-0+deb9u11+hw1 Page Time: 2.523s Queries: 35 (0.065s) Memory: 0.8819 MB (Peak: 1.8988 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-29 06:35:52 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS