Comparing getting a shot to recoil is like comparing apple to oranges. The needle penetrates, the guns Butt doesn't. Would you rather I place a hammer against your shoulder & slowly push on it or Draw it back & hit you with it.
That was essentially what Thomas said which was nothing but Pure Bull. He stated the only conclusion he could come to was that with the faster powder the kick was so "Fast" the shooter didn't have time to feel it. Go back & read it again for yourself.
"IF" you honestly believe that Crap I've got a Whole Bunch of stuff I'd like to sell you. Thomas was not even present at this "Blind Test", had only the powder makers word. He had no idea even as to what powders were tested.
Actual recoil & "Perceived" recoil can be, & often is, entirely different.
First time I ever fired a Colt 1911-A1 I thought its Kick was unbearable. I stupidly wasn't wearing ear protection. Shot it again the next day with ear protection, same gun, shells from the same box & it was a pussy cat. The recoil didn't change but my perception Did.
Best thing to do with Thomas' test is to throw it in the trash & forget it. His report on it was & is absolutely useless.
Being an "Engineer" sure didn't help him much in this case. As I recall he was a Civil Engineer. Understand I'm not knocking the trade, but they are trained to lay out & measure land, roads etc, not calculate recoil forces in a
gun.
Based on a 1 1/8 oz load the difference between using 20 grains of powder versus 30 grains would give a total weight difference of about 2%. I Firmly believe you best seriously Re-Think there being any Science involved at all in Thomas' report of this incident.
I may be a Tennessee Hill-Billy but I for sure AIN'T that stupid.
