Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 626 |
Same velocity. Based on never say " --- never," I'll stop short of saying, "Can't be!" But, I'm very skeptical and am looking for a plausible explaination. It must be something related to less friction in the smoothbore section. I have trouble with that. Reduced friction should translate into more velocity and/or higher recoil. The friction force on the bullet is easily seen to be drag and, therefore, the force acting on the gun must be in the thrust (muzzle) direction. Holland was quite adamant concerning their rifle weights and recoil. The 8 bore was advertised as reduced weight better handling and increased velocity as compared to a fully rifled arm. OK, I really have a problem with that!! You can't have increased velocity and reduced recoil. Increased velocity with constant gives increased momentum for the ejecta and, therefore, increased momentum for the gun. Reduced weight because of lighter recoil. I can attest the 8 paradox balances magnificently and shoulders like a much lighter gun. Could you give us the weight and balance point to front trigger for this gun, please? 15lb gun 7-71/4" OK, let's have a look at roughly comparable guns for an estimate of the objective handling.
W. J. Jeffery Double Rifle BLNE, .600 NE, 24" bbls, 14 3/8" LOP: weight = 14 1/2#, balance = 5 3/8", unmounted swing effort = 2.70, mounted swing effort = 14.89, compactness = 9.29
Westley Richards New Drop Lock BLE, 2009 Production, 8 bore, 34" bbls, 15 1/4" LOP: weight = 12# 7 oz, balance = 7 5/8", unmounted swing effort = 3.38, mounted swing effort = 17.43, compactness = 11.22
Greener SXS side lever hammer non-ejector #11510, 10-2 7/8" bore, 36" dam bbls, 14 1/4" LOP: weight = 11# 9 oz, balance = 7", unmounted swing effort = 3.08, mounted swing effort = 14.34, compactness = 11.11
The three guns above are very heavy to lift, require substantial effort to point in a different direction (around twice the effort of a typical game gun), and near heroic effort after mounting (about 2 1/2 times the effort of a typical game gun - sorta like shooting a pair while holding both guns at the same time). The balance is well forward, but generally managable. I think these subjective and objective descriptions should apply to the Paradox.
Considering the weight of the .600 NE above (14 1/2#), I'm going to venture that the extra weight of the fully rifled barrels made a "15# 8 bore" unworkable; unless the 8 bore rifle has more recoil than the .600 NE. So, the Paradox was the solution for a more weight managable gun and an "excuse" for the lighter weight that was needed. Unexplainable lower recoil seems to suit. We all know how accurate advertising claims tend to be. Advertising for the period indicates increased velocity (I don't have a fully rifled Holland 8 but had another makers gun here for a while a 17lbder and velocities were similar). The fact that the majority of the big bore pdxes were made a couple of pounds lighter than fully rifled guns is a "smoking gun" indication of lighter recoil. If you have an interest or curiosity in the paradox you might want to invest in Roger Lakes book "Paradox" It would be impossible to duplicate the information in this book, if one were to try and do so on his own. We need to compare apples to apples. We were talking about 8 bore conical guns And let me get the semantics correct without any puffing; The 8 bore paradox has the ability to shoot a conical bullet of the same weight with the same powder load at a higher velocity than the fully rifled arm and with lower recoil. Holland and Holland took advantage of the reduced recoil to shave a pound or two off the paradox. That would mean recoil would be similar to that of a pound or two heavier fully rifled gun. I would believe the same could be said for the 20,12 and 10 bore paradox guns in comparison to corresponding rifles with similar loadings. The 8 bore paradox was never offered with a nitro loading. As to recoil decide for yourself; 
|
