Larry;
Unlike some I do not record my posts here. I do however have a rather good memory on many things. I do very well recall that I was taking the stand that if a difference in recoil could not be measured then I placed no validity in what people Claimed they "Felt". YOU point blank asked me to explain why in my opinion that in this test done by IMI & reported on by Gough Thomas (As I recall Thomas was not present at the test) that it had been a unanimous conclusion that the fastest powder gave the least recoil. I stated that in my opinion it was because the loads with the slower powder had a heavier charge & thus had a higher recoil which could be calculated or measured.
YOU Flatly denied this to be the reason. stating that the difference in the charge weight was not significant enough to make that much difference.
I then suggested that a 42 grain bulk powder may have been used in the slower loads. You again Denied that could even possibly have been the case, even though I could never understand why as neither then nor now could you say What Powder was used.
At that point it was stated that a represenative of IMI had carried these shells to a gun club as I recall, not a hunting ground & only Two loads was mentioned. There was absolutely no mention of any of these loads being fired in a gun with a special stock having an accelerometer installed, implication to me was the shooters actually fired them from their own guns. The report was based solely on that basis. There has been Absolutely NO mention of Thousands of shells being fired until this thread, Why did you never give us all the data you say you have until now. Did you finally come to realize there was just not enough info on this BIG TEST to bolster your viewpoint so you had to make up some to boost it along.
A member here at the time did scan in a copy from his Thomas book which bore out the details just as I have stated. I don't recall now the title of that particular book but obviously Thomas recorded it different at different points in time or You have made up this latest info. Thomas' Conclusion was that the only explanation he had was that the loads with the faster powder recoiled so "Fast" the shooter simply did not have Time to feel it. "HOGWASH"
As you stated earlier I do fully realize the old a
statement about what to ASSume makes out of U & ME, so I am trying not to assume too much. .Perhaps As you mhave so much INFO on this test you can tell us just in what matter the Accelerometer was able to verify the faster powder gave the less recoil. Now do Realize that if you tell us it gave a "Higher" reading for the Slow powder you didn't shoot your HERO Thomas in the foot, You centered him between the eyes, Remember HE stated the fast powder loads had less felt recoil BECAUSE they Recoiled SO FAST & You have backed him up in every Foolish & Stupid thing he ever said.
Me personally you see I fully believe that if these loads with the faster powder Truly gave the lesser recoil then the slower powder loads showed a higher reading on the Accelerometer, but that Would BLOW Thomas' theory Big Time, Wouldn't it Larry, or are you man enough to admit you have made a total Fool of yourself in this whole scenario for at least ten years or more now as you have done everything in your power to make me look kike the Dumb Hill-Billy I jokingly called myself. You have of course accomplished just the opposite.
As to the new thread, Don't get too carried away patting yourself on the back that you were actually the reason. The original thread was about 800X powder. I made some simple statement on that thread which was not that far off topic & then You jumped on me with both feet & things deteriorated from there. I started the new thread simply as a courtesy to the original poster of the other thread.
As to the Blind part not really worth making a big deal over, just a matter of a different interpretation of the meaning of blind. I did not deny that the shooters did not know which shell was loaded with which powder, wouldn't have been much of a test if they had would it. To me though IF they were shooting specially equipped guns & were told to mark the recoil then I do not refer to that as Blind. To me it would have been Blind if they had been handed two different colored shells & told to shoot them & make any comments they noted on them. "IF" then with any knowledge of what they were actually looking for they had Unanimously stated well I noted the Red ones Kicked less, that would have been blind. That as you stated is not however what occurred so we simply have a different definition of blind.
I did not say that I was in total agreement that recoil was automatically less with a faster powder you are again putting words in my mouth which I didn't say. It well could be that you loaded the faster powder with one wad & a slower powder which was bulkier & required a different wad. Perhaps 3 grains more powder was used with the slower powder, but the wad weighed 7 grains more to take up the space with the faster powder then the table would tilt toward the slower powder giving the less recoil as total ejecta weight would be less,
I have stood totally firm all through all of this that Recoil can be measured &/or calculated & that is what counts. Forget all this "Felt" recoil Mumbo-Jumbo. I still stand on this. I am well aware that many disagree with this, that's fine by me, but when one says the faster powder Kicks less & another says the Slower one does, I just go with which one shows the actual less measured recoil. Has always worked for me.
