"...faster burning powders require less powder for the same velocity, but you pay for that with higher pressures, and let me assure you - a higher pressure load - even at the same velocity and the same payload - recoils more than a lower pressure load."
Nick Sisley
Ruffed Grouse Society magazine
Spring 2010
Consider this: Newton's law of physics; equal and opposite reaction; ejecta goes out the end of a 30-inch (2.5-foot) barrel @ 1,100 fps means it accelerated from zero at a rate to achieve 1,100 fps muzzle velocity at some rate of acceleration--but of necessity averaging 550 fps in the barrel.
Query: Does rate of burn really matter?
Assuming 1,100 fps at point of exit, 1,100 fps versus 2.5-foot barrel length means that the ejecta is going the barrel length to point of exit in 1/220th of a second (twice the 1/440th of a second of the ejecta going at 1,100 fps x 2.5 feet after exit at full speed). The average person's reaction time is about 3/10ths of a second or 66/220ths of a second. The travel time of the ejecta is about 66 times faster than the average person's mind works.
Methinks that this all can be reduced down to a simple equation:
The value of BBS-BS is directly proportional the amount of T (time) times N (number of posters) who would otherwise debate the number of angles who could dance on a double-gun hinge pin. But there is some precedent for this endless spawning of red herrings:
Going back to the advent of wood-nitro powders in the 1870s and 1880s, where shooters could directly compare the old black powder of the day to the new "smokeless" powders, there was a consensus that the wood powders had less perceived recoil and were quieter. This is mulched-over in my
Parker Guns: Shooting Flying... (Collector Books 2008) @ Ch. 16 "Villainous Saltpeter" where the subject is documented by period correct anecdotes published in the sporting press of the 19th Century:
November 1876, Ira Paine wrote to
The American Sportsman, citing his use of Dittmar's Wood Powder: "I use Dittmar's for my exhibition shooting on the stage on account of its lack of noise and smoke..."
May 1875 in
Forest & Stream a subscriber wrote: "The results of our experiments will show how Dittmar's wood powder really worked.... With four drams of black powder, the recoil was unpleasant; but with the same load of wood powder the recoil was very light..."
In other words, the issue of felt recoil with differing burning-rate loads is as old as the inception of powders that differed from black. In February I attended a Cowboy Action shoot in Texas and the "whump" of black powder was easily distinguished from the "crack" of modern loads, given the differing nature of combustion; black powder simply burns charcoal releasing the oxygen in the saltpeter while being accelerated and bound together by sulfur; Wood powders and modern chemical substitutes have a chemical reaction beyond simple burning. Consequently, burn rates of modern powders are a function of, and controlled by chemistry, whereas black powder-burn rate is controlled by quality and relative measures of the ingredients. But does all this really matter?
My point being is that felt recoil may be subjective in the shoulder of the beholder. But there can be so many other variables:
Quoting the original post: "...a higher pressure load, even at the same velocity and same payload, recoils more than a lower pressure load.
Isn't the real question: How do you achieve the same velocity of an equal payload with less pressure (pressure being the measure of total energy exerted); it takes energy (pressure) to move the ejecta the distance from breech to muzzle at a given exit fps speed (where the ejecta at once stops accelerating and begins slowing down).
Query: Doesn't the concept of fast burn/slow burn at the same exit velocity (1,100 fps) seem to defy the laws of physics?
In the final analysis, the equal and opposite reaction (recoil of an 8-pound gun)is a function of the 1 1/4-ounce ejecta weight accelerated from zero to 1,100 fps in 1/220th of a second--and thus magnified in an instant--1/220th of a second--or about 66 times faster than an average person can react to Newton's equal and opposite law of physics.
Still confused? Then let me posit the next Red Herring: How many angles can dance on a hinge pin? EDM
