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
5 members (Jimmy W, Hugh Lomas, eightbore, SKB, 1 invisible), 676 guests, and 6 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics38,376
Posts544,025
Members14,391
Most Online1,258
Mar 29th, 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.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Can we see a show of hands from the people that actually can make it all the way through reading one of Larry Browns posts on here ?

Those like me that can't make it past the first one or two sentences reading lOonie Larry's posts lets take a moment of silence.

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

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Originally Posted By: dhanks
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.


Dhanks;
For your benefit I am going to address this. I see you only joined this forum in 2018. My membership shows 2001. You can ask any ""Honest" member on this forum & I believe they will tell you I do not habitually engage in Personal attacks on any one, not even those which have differing opinions than I do. There is an old saying though that you can just push anyone so far & eventually they'll turn on you.

Larry has simply taken so many different positions on this subject that I doubt even he knows where he stands. His stand when all this came up some years back was totally different than what he now claims, yet he had the Audacity to essentially call me a LIAR.

Well dhanks I AM NOT A LIAR. Anything I say you can take to record that I Thought it to be the truth. I am of course not above making a mistake & have made a few here on this forum, but when I did I admitted them & Apologized for them.

I do fully believe if you stay with us & follow this forum for a while you will soon see the Great Difference between Me & Larry.

As in this case when he was PROVEN wrong he tried to switch sides & claimed that was what he stood for all along & that I had been wrong, even though I never changed my stance at all.

I suspect this has been going on for some 10 years now & I have tolerated it up to this point. I have simply tried to answer him with what I felt to be facts, but in the 800x thread he went out of his way to try to make me look like a Fool & I admit, He pushed once too often & did indeed hit my breaking point.

Even so I believe that in the eyes of the vast majority on this forum he has only Made Himself to look like the Fool. Everyone here is aware of hie Wishy-Washiness & how when confronted with facts he will simply take a Tack & try to make himself look good as if he were on the other side all along...


Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 44
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 44
Argo, Larry and King walk in to a gun shop looking for some Red Dot and the proprietor pulls out an original damascus barreled L.C. Smith with bulino engraving of the General Lee on one side and Daisy Duke on the other, loaded with low pressure/recoil 800x and says....

....get the fook out!


__________________________
yawn.... ed good

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Well Mr. Miller, your recall clearly isn't nearly as good as you think it is. Not only do you misquote me in your last ramble, but you misquote yourself. No need to record posts. All you need to do is go back and look.

Now you're telling everyone that there was no mention of a special stock with accelerometer installed until this thread. No mention of thousands of shells being fired until this thread. WRONG! Go back and look at the previous page, where YOU started this thread--with quotes from me that YOU LIFTED FROM THE 800X THREAD. Which starts with my quote from Thomas, in which I clearly list the source, and surround it with these little marks " " to make clear that it is a quote. In that very first post, Thomas refers to thousands of shells, and he refers to accelerometers. And you got that quote from a post I made in the 800X thread--so no, you're wrong. This is NOT the first time you've read any of that. You read it in the 800X thread and moved it to this thread.

What we do have in this thread is the very first time you ever mentioned that 42 grain bulk powder might have been used in the test. Sorry, but no . . . maybe you intended to be that specific in the 800X thread, but you never were. Nor did I make any comment about what powders might have been used in the test other than to echo Thomas' quote about both fast-burning and slow-burning powders having been used.

And I don't know where your reference to only two kinds of shells having been used in the IMI test came from. Not from me, for sure--because I don't know how many kinds of shells were used. I may be wrong, but as far as I know, the most complete description Thomas gave of that test is from the source I quoted: pp 154-155 of his book, "Shotguns and Cartridges" (third edition published 1975). That information is only about a paragraph in length, and does not state how many different kinds of cartridges were used.

I could go on about places you misquote me and places you claim you said something in the other thread that you never said. But what's the point, when you can't even remember where you got the quotes from me, with which you start THIS thread? Well, they came from the 800X thread, which means that it's not the first time you've seen the information--because YOU lifted from that thread, and YOU started this thread with quotes from me which you lifted from that thread.

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,670
Likes: 372
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,670
Likes: 372
Originally Posted By: HomelessjOe
Can we see a show of hands from the people that actually can make it all the way through reading one of Larry Browns posts on here ?

Those like me that can't make it past the first one or two sentences reading lOonie Larry's posts lets take a moment of silence.



I don't have that problem Joe. And if you can't read past two sentences, why do you whine about it all the time. Afterall, you didn't read it?


_________
BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]


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

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Larry; YOU IGNORANT FOOL This thread was only as I stated in courtesy to tyhe originator of the 800x thread. I am actually treating them as one post. NONE of that special guns with acelerometers had appeared over some probably 10 years of discussing this, Until the 800X thread, I'm you see not a fancy writer, If you say you didn''t understand what I was s aying I am Calling You a LIAR to your face, or as close as I want to get to it.
Its time you put up or SHUT UP.

Tell us what powders were tested, I know, You don'y know, see I remember. Tell us what guns were used, were the Special Guns equipped for this test as you Now say, or were that the shooters personal guns as had been implied all these years. It is extremely hard to determine when the GIVEN FACTS??? change with every post.
You have Ignored A Vital question, what did the accelerometer readings show (Assumuing they were actually made & not a figment of either Thomas' or Your Imagination).

To Date I can only call this a TEST made with ALL UNKNOWN FACTS. Value = 0
IF you want to have a decent discussion based on known Facts then as I said Put up some, If you don't have any, which everything indicates you don't then Its High Time you just Shut your Big Fat Mouth.

I appoligize to every member of this board "EXCEPT LARRY BROWN", for this rant. As I said though there just comes a time when one gets pushed beyond their limit & Larry has hit that point with me.

As Sgt Joe Friday used to say on the old Dragnet show, Just the facts, maam, Nothing but the Facts. Give us some facts Larry that you'll stand behind & not change tomorrow.


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
Don't apologize to me Miller. You deserve Sainthood for putting up with Larry's bullshit for as long as you have. And I'm just not as thin skinned as some of our Fake Ass Gentlemen when it comes to calling a spade a shovel.

BrentD may have actually read all of Larry's drivel, but it is plain to see that he isn't capable of comprehending it. I really didn't think he could, because I've already seen that neither he nor Larry was capable of digesting the obvious discrepancies in the Junk Science they both cling to in their support of lead ammunition bans.

jOe was obviously being facetious about being unable to read past one or two sentences of Larry's B.S., because he has responded numerous times to Larry's long-winded defenses of Muslim extremists... in spite of evidence to the contrary... even from their own Koran:

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

And wasn't it amusing to see Larry attempting to shoot down Miller when he (Larry Clown) previously posted clearly conflicting information about recoil from fast and slow burning powders in the same post? I think I'll just QUOTE that entire post #521009 even though I already showed that Larry is apparently on both side of the same issue once again. I'll put the conflicting parts in BOLD TYPE:

Originally Posted By: L. Brown
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.


I figured I'd better QUOTE that here before Larry edited his words and then denied what he posted. That post also contains the incorrect multiplier of 1.75 that Larry falsely cited from Hatcher's formula for shotgun recoil calculations. It's obvious he was referring to shotgun recoil because he specifically referred to the "significant factor" of the weight of the powder charge compared to the weight of the shot.

Larry would respond to this if he thought he had the upper hand and could prove me wrong. But this time, he'll most likely pretend to IGNORE me in the hopes that few will notice how he rolls.

Dr. Wanker doesn't provide much useful information here, but even a blind hog finds a truffle now and then. Open the link he provided and read Section 4, especially "THE RECOIL OF TWO KINDS OF POWDER" and "The Summary of Section 4".

Dr. Wanker's Link on Shotgun Recoil

If Dr. Wanker's intent was to discredit Larry and prove Miller's assertions about recoil are correct, then Mission Accomplished! Recoil velocity was the same with the slow and fast powders at equal muzzle velocities. The only difference was a "small fraction of a millisecond delay" in the recoil between the fast and slower powders. It would be interesting to measure the dB (sound pressure levels) of the two loads to determine if that had a psychological effect upon shooter's perceptions of felt recoil.

Dr. Wanker can explain it to Larry, but NOBODY can understand it for him. That would require Larry to have a brain.




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

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Miller, I'd say "ignorant" is YOU . . saying that you haven't seen claims about the thousands of rounds fired, haven't seen claims about the special stocks until THIS THREAD--when YOU are the one who moved that very information from the 800X thread to this thread. About the only thing you got right is that you're certainly NOT a fancy writer. You can't even untangle all the mistakes you've made.

I have no idea what's been "implied" over years of discussions concerning the guns used in the IMI tests. I included what is, to my knowledge, Gough Thomas' most complete quote on the subject of the tests. I even put the little marks fancy writers use (" ")--and learned in junior high English class--to make sure that those who are NOT ignorant understand that the information in question comes not from me, but from what Mr. Thomas wrote in "Shotguns and Cartridges".

Miller, I can't help it if what Thomas wrote is new to you. Hey, I'm just helping you do your research. Now you know what Thomas wrote. I can't provide any further details about the tests--and neither can you. But since you agree that fast-burning powders do indeed produce less recoil than slow-burning powders in loads of the same velocity with the same shot charge, I don't know what the heck you're arguing about anyhow. And apparently neither do you.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Originally Posted By: keith

jOe was obviously being facetious about being unable to read past one or two sentences of Larry's B.S., because he has responded numerous times to Larry's long-winded defenses of Muslim extremists... in spite of evidence to the contrary... even from their own Koran:


Exactly....plus the fact that Larry the Clown is brAin deAd.

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

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Larry;
I am going to TYPE this in Real Slow so even you can perhaps understand.
AUG 18, 2018 (4 days ago) is the first time you ever mentioned this last Bit of Info, under the 800x thread. You have simply Twisted the fact I probably mis-worded a bit when I said "This" thread when I was actually referring to the one I had just moved from to start the new topic, which I explained why I did so.

Now would you explain to me why all these years this topic has surfaced YOU had stated that an IMI represenative carried two types of shells to a firing range, club whatever & asked the shooters to fire them & give their impression of the recoil. No mention of "Thousands of Rounds" nor of special guns equipped with accelerometers had ever before been mentioned.

I personally read Thomas say he could only conclude the reason for the lesser recoil with the faster powder was because it recoiled "So Much Faster" the shooters didn't have time to feel it it as much. That statement as well as your comparison to getting a shot in the arm with a needle in trying to defend it are both Utterly Ridiculous.

I pointed out earlier I was not in full agreement that fast powder automatically gave less recoil, & cited a possibility where it would not. The powder charge is only one link in the chain, its the total ejecta weight which includes powder, wads & shot which determines recoil. See you have Mis-Quoted me again.

Larry I do appoligize for using the term Ignorant, that probably is an untrue statement. A Conniving, Squirming Snake in the Grass would actually be far more factual.

As I have said so many times before concerning the Facts we know of this test, We don't know what powders were used, don't know what the bores measured, lengths of cones etc & etc & NOW, we find this test was done with guns equipped with accereometers, but we have No Idea what those accelerometers actually recorded nor in what way they proved the validity of the tests.

Total summation of the values of these tests & of what benefit they are to us is Still a Big Fat 0.

If you would like to stop this interchange Larry, then quit bringing up these tests. As long as you continue to do so I promise I will point out they have proved Nothing to us as We have no knowledge of how they were actually done, no Data as to loads used or "Actual" results only Heresy.

Only thing we have is they were "Unanimous" in their results. I can pretty well guarantee that if you supplied a group of shooters with two loads with same weight of shot to same velocity,such as the Red Dot & Green dot loads you cited that the conclusion would not be unanimous, the difference is simply too slight for that.

That one aspect of these tests alone make it Extremely Suspicious to me. My real conclusion of these tests is, if they were conducted at all, is they were rigged by IMI to make certain the results desired were obtained. I know you will deny that Larry, but that's fine as I also know you cannot produce any evidence to prove it wrong.

As to the ridiculous statement you have made so many times as to WHY IMI would extol one of their products over another, Obviously you ignore Advertisement Technics. I could ask the same question as to why Hercules/Alliant powder company advertised both American Select & Red Dot as being the "Best" in the same Handloader's Guide. American Select was New at the time, they wanted to promote it, but they were Not Dropping Red Dot so they continued to extol its virtues. Advertisement Larry, Pure & Simple. That argument is purely Grasping at Straws on your part to uphold these tests as actually being legitimate which I sincerely doubt.

As to helping with research, what have you given us, again a Big Fat Zero as you can give us no data at all.


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
"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.

Well Miller (and anyone else in the audience still paying attention) there--once again, for the 3rd time (twice in this thread and once in the 800X thread) is, to my knowledge, the most complete statement Thomas ever wrote about the tests that were conducted. I can't remember whether I included the entire quote in previous discussions of slow vs fast powders, recoils, the British tests, what Thomas had to say about them etc. What I KNOW is that I have had Thomas' "Gun Book" for a very long time, and it was at some later date (but still years ago) that I acquired "Shotguns and Cartridges", and that's where Thomas elaborates more on the tests than he does in either his "Gun Book" or "Shooting Facts and Fancies".

So, to make this easy, I'll tell you what: If we want to continue this discussion in a fruitful and possibly productive manner, let's stick with focusing on the above quote from Thomas. Because what you remember about what I said on the subject years ago, Miller, is FLAT WRONG. No, I never said anything about only two types of cartridges being used. Thomas never says that, and I've never read anything about the tests in question anywhere except from Thomas, so I don't have any source for that information . . . or rather misinformation as far as I'm concerned. Maybe someone else has something from Thomas they'd like to contribute--via DIRECT QUOTE (as I did, above, citing the source, page, etc). Or maybe someone else (not me!) said something about only two types of cartridges. So, if anyone else has anything else from Thomas--or from any other source--on the IMI tests to which Thomas refers, let's hear it. Maybe someone will come up with the complete 50 page (or whatever) report, which will help answer Mr. Miller's questions about what Thomas wrote. Because other than speculation, I cannot contribute anything more on those tests, or what Thomas said about them, other than what Thomas himself wrote.














Last edited by L. Brown; 08/23/18 10:31 AM.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Mr. Miller you can't argue with a moron and win because the moron never realizes he lost.....

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

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Larry;You Hit the nail on the head with that last post, Every thing you have given us is Speculation. There is absolutely no Solid evidence to base any conclusions on.
You Win Larry, there is absolutely no point in continuing when you will say one thing at one point & Then Lie about saying it & take another tack, You have not Really proven this test ever even took place.
I have only your word & Thomas' word & both appear to talk out of both sides of your mouth & say different things on different occasions.
I will ask one more time, WHAT did the accelerometer reveal, In What way did it prove that fast powder had less recoil.??


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
Originally Posted By: 2-piper


Larry I do appoligize for using the term Ignorant, that probably is an untrue statement. A Conniving, Squirming Snake in the Grass would actually be far more factual.


I mostly agree with this observation, except for the apology for calling Larry ignorant.

Larry would have to be ignorant to think folks don't see what he pulls to avoid ever admitting to being wrong. He is desperately trying to make it look like Miller is the one with the faulty memory, but I have shown his own post from the 800x Powder thread how he made conflicting statements about the recoil generated by fast and slow powders. One was a quote from Thomas concerning fast burning powder and the other was from Larry offering the exact opposite opinion about slow burning powder.

It's hard to ever be proven wrong when you can be on both sides of an issue.

Then there is still that little faux pas where Larry provided an incorrect multiplier for Hatcher's recoil formula for shotguns. Miller pointed that out to him, but he couldn't possibly man-up and acknowledge making an error. That makes me think the error may have been intentional in his never ending quest to denigrate anyone who catches him in his bullshit. This behaviour is far too habitual for me to have any other opinion.

Larry has responded to my posts numerous times since he vowed to IGNORE my posts, so I'm happy knowing he is reading this one too.


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

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Originally Posted By: 2-piper
Larry;You Hit the nail on the head with that last post, Every thing you have given us is Speculation. There is absolutely no Solid evidence to base any conclusions on.
You Win Larry, there is absolutely no point in continuing when you will say one thing at one point & Then Lie about saying it & take another tack, You have not Really proven this test ever even took place.
I have only your word & Thomas' word & both appear to talk out of both sides of your mouth & say different things on different occasions.
I will ask one more time, WHAT did the accelerometer reveal, In What way did it prove that fast powder had less recoil.??



Nope, not all speculation. We don't need to "speculate" about what Thomas wrote, because I quoted him directly from his book. You're the one doing the speculating and asking questions that I already told you--multiple times-- that I can't answer. Concerning the tests: I ONLY KNOW WHAT HE WROTE. NOTHING MORE. You don't seem to be able to comprehend that.

Thomas doesn't tell us what the accelerometers revealed, so how could I possibly tell you? Read his last sentence concerning the "proof" that fast powder recoils less than slow powder. Did you miss the part about it being the unanimous verdict of the shooters?

So you have nothing new to contribute but speculation . . . including speculation that maybe the tests didn't even take place. Well, when I lived in Morocco--not long after the moon landings--I ran into many people who couldn't believe that it happened. And there are still some skeptics running around today. I held a moon rock in my hand, courtesy of astronaut Michael Collins' sister. From all I knew, it might've come from her back yard. Evidence can certainly be faked. But I believed it was a real moon rock. So yeah, I believe the tests took place. Beyond that, unless someone comes up with other information I haven't seen, we only know what Thomas wrote about them.

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

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Larry;
YOU have totally missed my point entirely. Yes I am well aware of what you wrote. MY point is that absolutely Nothing whatever has been "Proven". We have "ONLY" Thomas' word & that is pure speculation with no data to back it up. IF I don't even know which loads the accelerometer recorded as having the most acceleration then I Know Not how to judge which gave the most recoil DO I??
Total number of facts you have given us = 0.
I have tried my best to carry on a meaningful discussion on this topic, you give us only Word of Mouth speculation which DEFINITELY has not always been in agreement with what you said earlier on the same topic.
I have not varied in one Iota as to what I believe & stand for. Thomas was Not present for these tests, he simply reported something he read from somewhere. Recoil can be measured & one can expect to feel in relation to what can be measured. To get a unanimous opinion of what was "Felt" by a group of Expert shooters there was obviously a substantial difference in the loads tested. This tells me the "Tests" were rigged by IMI to produce results favorable to them for the New Powder they were introducing. This is essentially what I have said, perhaps in some different wording but with same meaning, from Day 1 on this subject.


Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 44
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 44
Kudos! , Larry

Somehow I expected you to work the CIA and Morocco into this, but the Moon rock is a nice touch. Ill bet King never held a Moon rock. But then I bet you never dated Jackie O.

Moon stones and steel bars and love on my mind!
https://youtu.be/1gWU5j0cilw


___________________________
Hi, Ted/King!
https://youtu.be/0BXKC-EYw-0
The Band (wish this wasnt cut off)

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Well Miller, since you seem unable to produce a quote to prove what you incorrectly recall I "said earlier on the same topic"--for instance, something about only 2 kinds of cartridges being used--how are you any better than Thomas? In fact you're worse, because we at least have a direct quote from Thomas. And you've now heard about the accelerometers and the thousands of shots, which you claim you hadn't heard before--so you ought to be thanking me for providing more you can pick apart in his quote.

And as far as you saying the same thing "from Day 1 on this subject", in your previous post you state: "You have not really proven this test ever even took place." Now you seem to detect proof that the tests, which you previously suggested didn't take place, "were rigged by IMI to produce results favorable to them . . . " To which I'd only suggest that it's impossible to rig a test that never happened.

If you're going to critique what Thomas wrote, you really ought to try to be more consistent in your criticism.

Last edited by L. Brown; 08/24/18 04:56 PM.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
For those who haven't gotten tired of watching Larry Clown flailing, nothing in his last post explains why Mr.Perfect previously quoted Thomas as saying that fast powders produced less recoil, and then two paragraphs later, Mr. Perfect Larry Clown stated the opposite. And then Mr. Perfect went on to produce an incorrect multiplier for Hatcher's recoil formula for shotguns.

And to think that Mr. Perfect is taking Miller to task for being inconsistent. What a joke.

I think that Moon Rock that Larry held in his hand was actually a dried up big green loogie that Jake IX crapped out after Larry's older brother King hawkered it down his throat for the sin of being frightened.

It's a long story.., but it's more plausible than the B.S. Larry Clown is shoveling our way here.


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

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,718
Likes: 94
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,718
Likes: 94
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...


keep it simple and keep it safe...
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1129
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1129
Sleep somewhere else. You're loitering.

SRH


May God bless America and those who defend her.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Originally Posted By: Stan
Sleep somewhere else. You're loitering.

SRH


For most people, posting a series of zzzz's would indicate that they are bored with a thread. But in Ed's case, he is trying to tell us that he pissed himself again.


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: 0.182s Queries: 79 (0.146s) Memory: 1.0338 MB (Peak: 1.8990 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-29 14:38:38 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS