"Jim, if you don't believe that an increase of 1500 psi and blown ends on shells might also result in an increase in recoil, why don't you try it for yourself and see? Sort of in Bell's "Finding Out For Myself" mode. Personally, I am more than willing to accept the reports from Thomas and Fergus that long shells fired in short chambers with short cones produced similar visible results to the ends of the shells; so why is it unlikely that they also produced similar increases in pressure? And in both cases, they reported significantly increased recoil. And in Fergus' case, he fired the same long shells in another gun, also with short chambers but with longer forcing cones, with totally different results: no blown ends on the hulls, no noticeable increase in recoil. He also reported that true 2 1/2" hulls worked fine in the gun with the short cones."

An increase in pressure of 1500 psi MIGHT increase velocity and therefore increase recoil. BUT, the increase in recoil WILL be because of the increased velocity, NOT because of the increase in pressure.
And NO, I don't believe blowing the ends off of shells will increase recoil.
I'm amazed at the lengths you pressure believers will go to prove that pressure CAUSES recoil. It does not! rates of accelleration and all the other smokescreens offered are just smokescreens. Recoil is caused by the gun's reaction to the velocity of the ejecta, period. Learn to live with it. Facts are facts. Physics is physics. BS and speculation are just BS and speculation.
You might as well say the primer causes recoil because without it, there would be no burning of powder and expanding gases to cause the velocity of the ejecta. Or maybe it's the trigger's fault.

> Jim Legg <