I read the G&A test. It involved about 5 shooters and, IIRC, only about 10 shots per shooter. Ie., it had zero statistical significance. The more subtle an anticipated difference, the greater is the required sample size. I like to read G&A sometimes, but........

The problem is even worse than that because experiments involving human subjects have hurdles not encountered in physics lab. One simple illustration: how would we rule out the possiblity of a bimodal distribution, ie., that some human subjects genuinely discriminate faster burn rate as "greater recoil", while other subjects genuinely draw the exact opposite conclusion.

On to formulas. The formula for recoil energy does not include terms for pressure. So, obviously, powder burn rate doesn't affect calculated recoil energy, except inasmuch as slower powders increase ejecta mass. The problem is the presumption that the perception of recoil by humans is best modeled as an energy. Does the area under the force/time curve come closest to telling 100% of the story, insofar as recoil perception is concerned? Oddly, nothing I have ever read has so much as addressed - let alone established - this. Invariably, this is just assumed.

We do not grant the energy equation exclusive validity when discussing terminal ballistics (the other "end" of recoil). We all remember reading about "killing power" as a moment (mv, Keith), as a velocity (Roy W), as a force, and even as power (KW - don't laugh, I've seen it). Maybe we've gotten smarter. Nowadays noone treats calculated energy as more than just a rough guesstimate in the realm of terminal ballistics. Maybe we should acknowledge the recoil equation as just one piece of the perceived recoil puzzle.

Sam