doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com "New" Recoil Thread

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.

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...

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

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.

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?

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.

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:



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.

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.

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

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.