doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com I read it in a magazine...

Go back to the 2002 Alliant Guide. At that date, perceived recoil was treated as a fun conundrum: paraphrastically the upshot was that "some reloaders" found RD kinder to the shoulder and "others" perceived less recoil with GD. Guess they wanted us to buy a lb. of ea. and conduct a powder "tasting". Now they're TELLING us which one kicketh more gently? I'd say they've joined Garwood in the looney bin. I still look on Garwood's scribbling with affection. Beats counting sheep.

jack

Well Larry, DO YOU Believe That???? You're an Idiot if you do, but not near as big a one as you would be if you have been going through 13 pages here, spouting his theory, twisting everything anyone says to try & make it fit to Thomas's theory. Shotgun Jones just confirmed that Alliant did in fact use the term "Felt" & talk about misquoting Larry I quoted you from their guide their exact words that the American Select gave ""Less Felt Recoil" because it burned slower. There is absolutely no way you can read into any of Jim's posts that he ascribed to Thomas's theory of less felt recoil because it was "So Fast" you didn't have the time to feel it.
So now after 13 pages of this you're going to be like a gutless rat on a sinking ship & desert Thomas are you & say you never believed him anyway, You Larry are the Scum of the Earth!!!!. Your colors have come through LOUD & CLEAR. From this moment forward I will never again post a reply to anything you say. GoodBy.

C'mon guys what are we talking about here? Popgun loads. You can't put RD behind anything heavier than 1.125 oz. anyway. So one gun gives some long-necked type faceslap and a mouse under the eye and a guy with a bad shoulder needs a Reactor falsie to precent volume target loads making it act up and your 12 yr old thinks it sort of hurts the first time because she expects it will and maybe there's not enuf flab to soak it up. It takes approximately 160-200 of those Remington Goldies going 1330 to give even a little feller like me a nitro headache and my shoulder's hardly sore the next day. Have I ever had a "sticky" trigger and staggered forward from the line? You bet? So the neural system is making decisions to avoid an accumulation of minor traumas. Seems like some shooting Doc should have hooked himself and some buddies onto an EEG looking for evidence of varying neurological response to a given, calculated recoil force created by whatever propellant and payload might be revealing. A cf. of slow powders might be in order and maybe payloads 1.25oz or heavier so we're certain we're not just complaining about raising the gun to the shoulder a few hundred times and squinting into the sun.

jack

Wow. Miller, I guess you woke up on the wrong side of the bed. If you can't quote someone correctly and try to put words in their mouth, that's YOUR problem, not the person you're misquoting. Don't blame me when you get caught . . . sort of like a rat in a corner, going back to your rat reference.

Here's my view: Frankly, I don't know how many people can tell the difference in recoil between 18 grains of RD, 19 of AS, and 20 of GD--all other components the same, and all pushing the same 1 oz payload at the same 1200 fps velocity (straight out of the Alliant book). I'm not sure I can tell the difference reliably enough to say "That one had to have been the RD load, but this one was the GD load." It would be interesting to do a blind test. But I'd bet you would not get a unanimous vote. That being said, I do believe that people "feel" recoil differently. Why shouldn't people sense recoil differently, since we all accept the fact (or at least I think we do) that different people have different thresholds of pain, which is also a sensation?

As for Thomas, to me his explanation of WHY one feels less recoil with a fast-burning powder is a THEORY . . . and nothing more. However, those who believe that what one feels (all other factors being equal) is based only on what can be MEASURED, end up AGREEING with Thomas' CONCLUSION--that the faster burning powder recoils less--if not with his THEORY. Because as one can easily conclude, simply by looking at Alliant reloading data, there is always LESS Red Dot in a comparable load than there is either American Select or Green Dot. And when you plug the numbers into the formula, less powder = less recoil. If in fact a blind test were to establish that all shooters (or a significant majority) feel less recoil with an AS or GD load vs RD, then there must be something about the burn rates of the powders (acceleration???) that isn't factored into the formula for computing recoil--but should be.

So . . . Alliant says reduced recoil with either American Select or Green Dot. The formula tells us Red Dot should produce less measurable recoil. Poor old, dead Gough Thomas agrees with the measurable recoil formula, whether you like his "sensation" explanation or not. Me . . . I don't know, and I don't really care. The only thing I care about is that since Red Dot, Green Dot, and American Select all cost the same at my club, and since the recipes call for less Red Dot, unless I get more "felt recoil" from Red Dot, that's what it makes bottom line sense for me to buy and use.

"unless I get more "felt recoil" from Red Dot, that's what it makes bottom line sense for me to buy and use."

Oh, Larry, you should know that Red Dot SMELLS so much better than Green Dot. THAT fine latikia is why we prefer it!

Well Lary I will go slightly back on my word & reply just once more. My memory Larry is perhaps a little better than yours. The first mention I ever heard of Thomas "Recoil Theory" (I had heard of Thomas, but not read him) came from you. You in fact made a post here some good time back in which you stated "HE" had done a blind test & found that faster powders gave less "Felt" recoil than slower ones & as this seemed to cantradict what others were stating what would account for that. At the time I responded & stated that most likely there was enough difference in tt of the powder charges that the slower powder loads did in fact give an "Actual" heavier recoil. You then stated this could not account for it as the small change of charge wts would certainly not give enough difference for a unaimous decision. Later I did have opportunity to read Thomas for myself & learned He didn't actually perform the test but reported on one done by a Commercial ammunition maker of unstated date & no particulars of the actual loads used etc, etc quoted. When the subject camde up at a later date I "Opined" that no doubt this "Test" was staged by IMI as "Propaganda to enhance sales of a particular line for them & that most likely it compared a load containing a dense powder against one of the older bulk type. You again flatly denied this could have even been a possibility & further stated they would have had no reason to do so as they made "Both Types" of powder. You then flatly denied that Alliant would have cited one of their powders as giving less Felt recoil than another powder they themselves produced, until faced with irrefutable facts to the contra, then you tried to twist it to make it conform with Thomas' "Theory". Finally upon being proved wrong about that you have now decided that was "Your" stand all along. My stand has been totally consistent IE that IMI "Staged" a test guaranteed to put a line of sheels they were making in good light, & that further Alliant jumped on the bandwagon of increasing "Propangada" on this "Felt Recoil" bit to introduce & promote a "New Powder" @ a "Premium" price. As one claiming to be conversant with "Propangda" this should be readily understandable, even I can grasp it with no difficulty.
If we take a 1oz shot wt, an estimated wad wt of 35grs & a powder charge wt of 18 vs 20 grs (RD vs GD) the total ejecta wt varies by .4% rather insignificant. I have no way of citing an actual diference in rate of acceleration, but in this case would also be very slight & in an offsetting direction to the charge wts. My stance Larry has been, is & will continue to be, unless shown by provable facts that recoil with any powder suitable fo a given load is primarily dependant upon total wt of ejecta & actual velocity of the load. All other factors make up only a very minor & virtually insignificant portion of it. These factors are both measurable & calculatable. So-called evidence I have seen opposing this has been for the most part simply lacking in significant data to support the claims. No Larry my stance has been totally consistent & has not been "Proven Wrong". I am not the one resembling a "Cornered RAT". To see that you need only take a gander in a mirror.

"All other factors make up only a very minor & virtually insignificant portion of it."

See what I mean? Oblivious to the complexities of modern life and physics. Must be nice to live in such a simple world.

And BTW, 3dr in modern definitions is 1.125oz at 1200FS. ATA mandated and factory certified for both AA's and GM's.

no JMO's on this one

WtS

Miller, once more a whole bunch of bandwidth . . . and while you criticize Thomas for making assumptions about the IMI test (which I admitted, on rereading, that he did not conduct himself), you end up making even more assumptions than he did. Like it's a bulk powder vs a more modern, denser type. Well . . . if we assume (please note: here I admit that I'm making an assumption) that whatever the two types of powder IMI tested cost the same based on weight--and I would note, at least where I buy my powder, that RD/GD/AS all cost the same (thus punching a large hole in your "premium price" argument)--then it would be bass ackwards for IMI to promote the faster burning powder, because that's bad for their bottom line. (Remember my "eureka" post, when I pointed out that from a "bottom line" standpoint, Alliant has a very good reason to promote GD or AS over RD? You use more GD or AS; Alliant sells more powder; Alliant makes more money. Simple as that . . . and certainly makes sense from a propaganda/advertising point of view, at least.) Of course I suppose those crazy Brits could be bass ackwards. Just nice guys, doing the shooters a favor by saving them money on powder, assuming the fast burning stuff sells for the same price as the slow burning stuff--which it does, on this side of the pond.

And Miller, once you untwist yourself, you'll find that in fact you AGREE with Thomas' conclusion, because he also concludes that the faster powder recoils less. It's just that you don't happen to agree with his "sensation" theory, but that's pretty much immaterial, since you haven't been able to disprove it either. But you both end up in the same place, albeit having taken different roads to get there.

According to the experts, the ATA only mandated 3 DE; they've never specified velocity.
The factory (SAAMI) definition of 3 DE is 1200 +/- 90 fps.

Not JMO.

A drams is a weight which equals 1/7000lb, 1/16 oz or 27.34375 grains. Always has been & still is. 3 drams then = to 82.03125 grains. This was a common load in black Powder days.
In "Modern Definitions" the correct term is "Drams Equivelent". This term was set up to convey to a shooter the power level of what he was shooting when he was still familar with black powder. It has stayed with us for years. Nominal velocity for a 3 DE charge behind 1 1/8oz of shot has been set as 1200 fps as stated. However a 3 DE charge can be used behind other shot weights than 1 1/8oz. The velocity will then vary according to wt of the shot. As I recall 3 DE with 1oz of shot goes to about 1255 fps, while with 1¼oz it drops to around 1135 or so, don't have a chart of these in front of me currently. Thus a 3 DE listing means that the powder charge regardless of its actual type, wt or whatever will produce a velocity level nominally equal to that of 3 drams of black by weight for the amount of shot used. Nothing more, nothing less. In years past I bought a large number of factory loaded 12ga shells on which was marked 3Drams Equiv-1oz #8, #6 etc according to shot size. These were the "Economy" shells in those days, now-a-days these loads all contain 3¼ DE which gives a nominal 1290fps to the 1oz of shot to insure working a gas gun adequatly.