doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Recoil as a Function of Hull Conformation

I shoot skeet with a guy who has been shooting for years and is quite proficient at it. Since he has shot so much, 100's of rounds per week when he was honing his skill, he developed a flinch. So he has done testing on various hulls--for recoil. He has found the Federals to be the lowest recoiling, not because of the paper base wad so much but because of the taper of the base leading up to the wall. At least I think I understood him correctly. If anyone is interested, I'll try to get more details. I have always preferred AA's because they hold up well and I think those are his second choice for recoil as well.

I presume when you are talking about paper-based Federals, you also mean paper hulls. If these produce less perceived recoil, then I would say it is more the paper hull and not the base. I still have a cache of the old Winchester/Western paper hulls. I load up a few boxes every summer for a trip back in time. They too shoot softer than any plastic hull and have a flat base. Smell great too, when heated with Red Dot.

Gough Thomas (GT Garwood) in one of his books makes a case for excess headspace increasing the felt recoil. Joe Wood maintains that the Winchester AAs kick him much more than the Federals. He is shooting them in old English and American SxSs. Both plastic hulls of course.

Perhaps some hulls have a thinner rim than others.

Best,

Mike

Interesting topic. I had a well respected professional gunsmith that you all know of tell me that Darnes have less perceived recoil due to the way they lock up with no headspace. I have a Darne but I have not had it out shooting since that discussion and I certainly have no idea if he is correct but it makes for an interesting topic.

Old Garwood, may he rest in peace, can make a convincing case for almost anything and he has graphs and charts but c'mon, garden variety target hull (122 gr.) setting back less than a 1/16" inch? That's got to hurt, right?

jack

Actually Jack, it does hurt. At least it hurts me. I know lots of people scoff at this and maybe it's because they are not recoil sensitive. I am and I can feel the difference between a gun with excessive headspace and one that holds the cartridge tight. Darnes with those obturater discs that are angled to the axis of the bore bother me less that a gun of similar or even heavier weight. As an example, I have four doubles each weighing five and three quarter lbs. Shooting an ounce at the same velocity in each I notice a difference in felt recoil with the Darne. Were I to shoot the same cartridge in a Browning Auto 5 or other long recoil auto I'll have a pounding headache after a box of shells even though the gun is way heavier. That drawn out double whump plays hell with my head. That long recoil effect was also noted by Gough Thomas. I expect some people thought that was a load of cod's wallop too. But for people like me who like light guns and are also wimps I can assure you, head space matters.
npm

Ralph Walker, in his gunsmithing book, tells of a S. American gun that was sent to him for evaluation. He said it kicked like a mule, so he called them about it. Come to find out, the S. American manufactured cartridges, have a thick rim. When he received a supply of them, he said recoil was drastically reduced. I have noticed that the rims on Federal paper looks to be much thicker than the customary plastic shells.

Lenard

This talk of lower recoil from a type of hull, leads me to believe that there is a difference in the peak pressures of the different cartridges. I'm not disputing any difference due to headspace, just that I am not a believer in the mystique of paper hulls producing lower recoil without producing lower pressure. I'm a follower of engineering data, not ja-ja beads or voodoo. If paper produces less recoil for the same powder pushing the same load out of the same gun the same velocity, it's because of a difference in the pressure curve being spread out and lower peak pressure.

With regard to head space and felt recoil I believe there is some value in this theory. In over and unders the guns with tumbler activated ejectors appear to suffer from this problem more than the spring activated type. Note all Browning/Miroku and Miroku Sterling Japanese guns are tumbler type ejectors as are the old Winchester 101, Franchi Alcione/Barrage/Dragon/2002/3003 to name a few and they all belt like a mule.

The problem lies in the fact that spring loaded ejectors hold the cartridge back against the standing breech and more so as the gun wears, this can be evidenced by the witness marks the ejectors leave on the standing breech. Hammer type ejectors are loose when closed allowing for cartridge backward movement on firing, you will also find on the Japanese guns that the cartridge rim reliefs in the chambers are a little bit deeper than european guns and is in part why Miroku/Browning are suspectable of missfires on the bottom barrell when the strikers get a little worn, notwithstanding all the other problems these guns have with weak tumbler springs and the offset arrangement of the strikers which seem to be more offset than the european guns.

I have noted that when these guns are used with cartridges having a thigher rim and of same velocity tend to shoot softer.

To chech this out take a thin rimmed European cartridge and a set of Miroku barrells and with a good strait edge across the back of the chambers measure the clearance, then take a thick rimmed made in USA cartridge and repeat the process,there is a noticable difference, then go and shoot a few of each, I would suggest nothing over 1250fps as anything above this speed tends to belt anyway and the difference there is less dramatic as you are getting belted by both.

Just my thoughts

Hotrack

Isn't there some theory about the shape of the chamber in which the propellant combusts? Hemispherical "radiates" and dissipates the recoil where a flat base allows it all to be pushed straight back?
RG