Don't apologize to me Miller. You deserve Sainthood for putting up with Larry's bullshit for as long as you have. And I'm just not as thin skinned as some of our Fake Ass Gentlemen when it comes to calling a spade a shovel.
BrentD may have actually read all of Larry's drivel, but it is plain to see that he isn't capable of comprehending it. I really didn't think he could, because I've already seen that neither he nor Larry was capable of digesting the obvious discrepancies in the Junk Science they both cling to in their support of lead ammunition bans.
jOe was obviously being facetious about being unable to read past one or two sentences of Larry's B.S., because he has responded numerous times to Larry's long-winded defenses of Muslim extremists... in spite of evidence to the contrary... even from their own Koran:
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspxAnd wasn't it amusing to see Larry attempting to shoot down Miller when he (Larry Clown) previously posted clearly conflicting information about recoil from fast and slow burning powders in the same post? I think I'll just QUOTE that entire post #521009 even though I already showed that Larry is apparently on both side of the same issue once again. I'll put the conflicting parts in
BOLD TYPE:
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.
I figured I'd better QUOTE that here before Larry edited his words and then denied what he posted. That post also contains the incorrect multiplier of 1.75 that Larry falsely cited from Hatcher's formula for shotgun recoil calculations. It's obvious he was referring to shotgun recoil because he specifically referred to the "significant factor" of the weight of the powder charge compared to the weight of the shot.
Larry would respond to this if he thought he had the upper hand and could prove me wrong. But this time, he'll most likely pretend to IGNORE me in the hopes that few will notice how he rolls.
Dr. Wanker doesn't provide much useful information here, but even a blind hog finds a truffle now and then. Open the link he provided and read Section 4, especially "THE RECOIL OF TWO KINDS OF POWDER" and "The Summary of Section 4".
Dr. Wanker's Link on Shotgun Recoil If Dr. Wanker's intent was to discredit Larry and prove Miller's assertions about recoil are correct, then Mission Accomplished! Recoil velocity was the same with the slow and fast powders at equal muzzle velocities. The only difference was a "small fraction of a millisecond delay" in the recoil between the fast and slower powders. It would be interesting to measure the dB (sound pressure levels) of the two loads to determine if that had a psychological effect upon shooter's perceptions of felt recoil.
Dr. Wanker can explain it to Larry, but NOBODY can understand it for him. That would require Larry to have a brain.
