doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com "New" Recoil Thread

"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.

Well Miller (and anyone else in the audience still paying attention) there--once again, for the 3rd time (twice in this thread and once in the 800X thread) is, to my knowledge, the most complete statement Thomas ever wrote about the tests that were conducted. I can't remember whether I included the entire quote in previous discussions of slow vs fast powders, recoils, the British tests, what Thomas had to say about them etc. What I KNOW is that I have had Thomas' "Gun Book" for a very long time, and it was at some later date (but still years ago) that I acquired "Shotguns and Cartridges", and that's where Thomas elaborates more on the tests than he does in either his "Gun Book" or "Shooting Facts and Fancies".

So, to make this easy, I'll tell you what: If we want to continue this discussion in a fruitful and possibly productive manner, let's stick with focusing on the above quote from Thomas. Because what you remember about what I said on the subject years ago, Miller, is FLAT WRONG. No, I never said anything about only two types of cartridges being used. Thomas never says that, and I've never read anything about the tests in question anywhere except from Thomas, so I don't have any source for that information . . . or rather misinformation as far as I'm concerned. Maybe someone else has something from Thomas they'd like to contribute--via DIRECT QUOTE (as I did, above, citing the source, page, etc). Or maybe someone else (not me!) said something about only two types of cartridges. So, if anyone else has anything else from Thomas--or from any other source--on the IMI tests to which Thomas refers, let's hear it. Maybe someone will come up with the complete 50 page (or whatever) report, which will help answer Mr. Miller's questions about what Thomas wrote. Because other than speculation, I cannot contribute anything more on those tests, or what Thomas said about them, other than what Thomas himself wrote.

Mr. Miller you can't argue with a moron and win because the moron never realizes he lost.....

Larry;You Hit the nail on the head with that last post, Every thing you have given us is Speculation. There is absolutely no Solid evidence to base any conclusions on.
You Win Larry, there is absolutely no point in continuing when you will say one thing at one point & Then Lie about saying it & take another tack, You have not Really proven this test ever even took place.
I have only your word & Thomas' word & both appear to talk out of both sides of your mouth & say different things on different occasions.
I will ask one more time, WHAT did the accelerometer reveal, In What way did it prove that fast powder had less recoil.??

I mostly agree with this observation, except for the apology for calling Larry ignorant.

Larry would have to be ignorant to think folks don't see what he pulls to avoid ever admitting to being wrong. He is desperately trying to make it look like Miller is the one with the faulty memory, but I have shown his own post from the 800x Powder thread how he made conflicting statements about the recoil generated by fast and slow powders. One was a quote from Thomas concerning fast burning powder and the other was from Larry offering the exact opposite opinion about slow burning powder.

It's hard to ever be proven wrong when you can be on both sides of an issue.

Then there is still that little faux pas where Larry provided an incorrect multiplier for Hatcher's recoil formula for shotguns. Miller pointed that out to him, but he couldn't possibly man-up and acknowledge making an error. That makes me think the error may have been intentional in his never ending quest to denigrate anyone who catches him in his bullshit. This behaviour is far too habitual for me to have any other opinion.

Larry has responded to my posts numerous times since he vowed to IGNORE my posts, so I'm happy knowing he is reading this one too.

Nope, not all speculation. We don't need to "speculate" about what Thomas wrote, because I quoted him directly from his book. You're the one doing the speculating and asking questions that I already told you--multiple times-- that I can't answer. Concerning the tests: I ONLY KNOW WHAT HE WROTE. NOTHING MORE. You don't seem to be able to comprehend that.

Thomas doesn't tell us what the accelerometers revealed, so how could I possibly tell you? Read his last sentence concerning the "proof" that fast powder recoils less than slow powder. Did you miss the part about it being the unanimous verdict of the shooters?

So you have nothing new to contribute but speculation . . . including speculation that maybe the tests didn't even take place. Well, when I lived in Morocco--not long after the moon landings--I ran into many people who couldn't believe that it happened. And there are still some skeptics running around today. I held a moon rock in my hand, courtesy of astronaut Michael Collins' sister. From all I knew, it might've come from her back yard. Evidence can certainly be faked. But I believed it was a real moon rock. So yeah, I believe the tests took place. Beyond that, unless someone comes up with other information I haven't seen, we only know what Thomas wrote about them.

Larry;
YOU have totally missed my point entirely. Yes I am well aware of what you wrote. MY point is that absolutely Nothing whatever has been "Proven". We have "ONLY" Thomas' word & that is pure speculation with no data to back it up. IF I don't even know which loads the accelerometer recorded as having the most acceleration then I Know Not how to judge which gave the most recoil DO I??
Total number of facts you have given us = 0.
I have tried my best to carry on a meaningful discussion on this topic, you give us only Word of Mouth speculation which DEFINITELY has not always been in agreement with what you said earlier on the same topic.
I have not varied in one Iota as to what I believe & stand for. Thomas was Not present for these tests, he simply reported something he read from somewhere. Recoil can be measured & one can expect to feel in relation to what can be measured. To get a unanimous opinion of what was "Felt" by a group of Expert shooters there was obviously a substantial difference in the loads tested. This tells me the "Tests" were rigged by IMI to produce results favorable to them for the New Powder they were introducing. This is essentially what I have said, perhaps in some different wording but with same meaning, from Day 1 on this subject.

Kudos! , Larry

Somehow I expected you to work the CIA and Morocco into this, but the Moon rock is a nice touch. I�ll bet King never held a Moon rock. But then I bet you never dated Jackie O.

Moon stones and steel bars and love on my mind!
https://youtu.be/1gWU5j0cilw


___________________________
Hi, Ted/King!
https://youtu.be/0BXKC-EYw-0
The Band (wish this wasn�t cut off)

Well Miller, since you seem unable to produce a quote to prove what you incorrectly recall I "said earlier on the same topic"--for instance, something about only 2 kinds of cartridges being used--how are you any better than Thomas? In fact you're worse, because we at least have a direct quote from Thomas. And you've now heard about the accelerometers and the thousands of shots, which you claim you hadn't heard before--so you ought to be thanking me for providing more you can pick apart in his quote.

And as far as you saying the same thing "from Day 1 on this subject", in your previous post you state: "You have not really proven this test ever even took place." Now you seem to detect proof that the tests, which you previously suggested didn't take place, "were rigged by IMI to produce results favorable to them . . . " To which I'd only suggest that it's impossible to rig a test that never happened.

If you're going to critique what Thomas wrote, you really ought to try to be more consistent in your criticism.

For those who haven't gotten tired of watching Larry Clown flailing, nothing in his last post explains why Mr.Perfect previously quoted Thomas as saying that fast powders produced less recoil, and then two paragraphs later, Mr. Perfect Larry Clown stated the opposite. And then Mr. Perfect went on to produce an incorrect multiplier for Hatcher's recoil formula for shotguns.

And to think that Mr. Perfect is taking Miller to task for being inconsistent. What a joke.

I think that Moon Rock that Larry held in his hand was actually a dried up big green loogie that Jake IX crapped out after Larry's older brother King hawkered it down his throat for the sin of being frightened.

It's a long story.., but it's more plausible than the B.S. Larry Clown is shoveling our way here.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...