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)
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.
