an interesting feature of the browning a5 auto loading shotgun is its ability to cycle a variety of loads, which create different levels of felt recoil...this is accomplished by changing the positioning of friction rings in their relation to the action recoil spring...for those not familair with how the a5 works, see the link below...
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog...anding-auto-5-friction-ring-orientation/sooo, what about using an a5 as a test platform to determine the suitabilty of shooting particular loads in old doublegons, that you wish to protect from heavy recoil?
for example, if a particular load will not even cycle an a5 set up for light loads, then is that load most likely suitable for shooting in your old doublegon?
Wowie, Fast Eddie. you finally posted something really interesting to me. Although I mainly shoot side-by-sidesd and Win M12's. I have owned a light 12 Belgian mfg. A-5 for over 40 years, 28" mod. VR barrel- not quite as heavy as a M-1 Garand (I was an armorer in the USMC) but solid and reliable. I use it for turkey with coppered lead loads, ducks and geese with steel shot, and sometimes for volume shooting with the 3-shot plug removed for crows and pigeons. Unlike the younger yuppie members of our DU chapter, who go ga-ga over all the synthetic stocked semi-autoloaders, mine has never failed to fire, early Sept. "bonus season on geese" to late Jan Goose season-like a Timex-- "takes a lickin', keeps on tickin. Great article. RWTF
Recoil is only part of the reasons I shoot low pressure loads in doubles. Low pressure/low velocity loads more correctly duplicate the loads these old guns were intended and designed to shoot. A 1300 plus fps load had not been invented yet or more correctly the powders for them had not been invented. Loads were 1100-1200 fps, one ounce to one and a quarter ounce, mostly towards the lower end on both.
Recoil is a function, or result if you want, of action of pushing shot down the barrel and reaction of the gun moving in the opposite direction. Nothing related to pressure at all. If you push a load down the barrel you get recoil. Total recoil generated has to be almost exactly the same if you do it at 1100 fps with a fast burning powder or a slow burning. You might get slightly more or less depending on powder burn rates but total recoil force has to be the same for our purposes.
Doubles were designed for the ammo of that time period. Barrels and wood were made to handle that ammo with safety. Now a hundred years of oil soaking wood does make it weaker but not hopelessly brittle. So as long as I use ammo it was capable of handling when designed it should be ok. I tell people it is not the height of the brass, not the velocity, not even the pressure alone that we must deal with. It is the combination of everything. If your load does what you need at substantially less pressure and recoil what more do you want? A dead bird or broken target is the goal.
c. 1900 standard loads were actually heavier than today's, with very similar pressures. The “standard” U.S. 12 gauge Field and Inanimate Target load was 1 1/4 oz. shot with 3 1/4 Dram (1220 fps) of Bulk (DuPont, “E.C.”, “Schultze”) Smokeless in a 2 5/8” or 2 3/4” case, with a modern transducer pressure of 8000 - 9500 psi.
Live Bird loads were usually 1 1/4 oz. 3 1/2 Dram Bulk Smokeless Powder in a 2 3/4” or 3” (for additional padding) case, with a pressure of 11,500 psi
Just before WWI: The “standard” U.S. 12g Field and Target load was 1 1/8 oz. shot with 3 Dr. Eq. (1200 fps) Dense (“Ballistite” or “Infallible”) Smokeless in a 2 3/4” case with a transducer pressure of 8,500 - 10,000 psi.
20g period reported pressures vary significantly but 7/8 oz. 2 1/2 Dram BULK Smokeless was 8000-10,000 psi.
7/8 oz. 2 1/2 Dr. Eq. DENSE Smokeless was 11,000 - 12,500 psi.
ed's suggestion fails to accommodate for the weight of the gun.
Lower recoil in a vintage double is wise, and it's not hard to pick a foot/pound target based on the recoil calculation
1 oz. at 1180 fps (2 3/4 Dram) in a 7.5 pound shotgun = 17.3 ft/lbs of free recoil.
17 ft/lbs seems like a good target no matter if a 20g, 16g or 12g. Or maybe 17 ft/lbs for a 12, 16 for a 16 and 15 for a 20?
I just bought another A5 for sea ducks. a 12 gauge magnum 3" version. It's pretty heavy but it won't be carried much if used for sea ducks.
try to focus here guys...
the question is, if a particular load does not generate enough recoil energy to cycle an a5 set up for light loads, could that load then be suitable for shooting in your old double gon?
there are three possible answers...
yes, maybe and no...
if no, then, why not?
You could say the same thing about any of the recoil operated shotguns. Franchi, Beretta, etc.
So, I’d say maybe.
You are just pushing against the spring, and the mass of the shotgun.
I suppose on an individual basis you could correlate for yourself.
Your A5 is not going to be very precise and only tell you one thing. Did it work or not? Are you going to say any load which works the A5 is automatically not usable in a double? If it worked, by how large an amount? If it did not by how much? And that assumes working an A5 has any correlation to being safe in a double.
You could use recoil calculations for a load as a better guide. Under 10 pounds ought to be safe, maybe 12 pounds. Velocity could be a general guide as well. 1100 fps on a one ounce load should be safe. But then you need to know pressures as well. There are one ounce load which generate higher pressures even with low velocity. A one ounce load, going 1200 fps that generates 11,000 + psi might be OK but I can find many better ones to load.
Give me known psi and velocity. I will pick a good one from there.
Pressure is not the same as recoil, ed. That has been discussed, at length, right here, prior to today.
I can change what loads cycle or don’t cycle your A5 with a drop of oil on the bronze bushing. Or, substituting a worn recoil spring for one that isn’t. Or a badly worn action spring.
Part of the genius of the A5 action is that the thing will cycle just about anything you stuff in it, provided it is somewhat clean and has most of the parts it was built with still installed.
Your question as to a design that measures pressure accurately has already been answered, with piezo devices, installed in barrels specifically to measure pressure.
Best,
Ted
keeping it simple and safe,
first fire a variety of factory loads advertised as "light", with the goal of finding those that fail to cycle the a5...
then, to be safe, test fire those light loads that failed to cycle the a5, in a strong, post ww2 sxs like a stevens 311 or fox b, etc...to see how they "feel"...
and by all means, do the foot pound calculations, if you like...
if everything looks and feels good, then test fire in your strongest old double gon with good fluid steel barrels and see how that feels...
if it dont feel right, then go on to the next load you wish to evaluate...
hopefully, by using this process of elimination, you will find factory loads that generate low felt recoil and are therefore, easy on your old gon...and you...
uh ted, this thread is about finding loads with low felt recoil...
it is not about barrel pressure...
Absolutely makes no sense whatsoever. I think the OP here needs a wellness check.
uh ted, this thread is about finding loads with low felt recoil...
it is not about barrel pressure...
Oh, but it is about pressure, ed. You just don’t grasp it.
Best,
Ted
....I can change what loads cycle or don’t cycle your A5 with a drop of oil on the bronze bushing. Or, substituting a worn recoil spring for one that isn’t. Or a badly worn action spring....
....Best,
Ted
This is the first thing I thought about the ole A5. Hey Ed, why not just shoot doves with the Browning autoloader, and look up tested loads.
To think that an A5 could be used with any sense of accuracy, or efficacy, to "test recoil" is beyond the pale.
Why don't you start a zinnia bed? You'll get much more satisfaction from it.
Hold on a minute.
If you don’t change anything, and the cleanliness level stays the same, until the recoil spring fatigues, you can have reproducible distance traveled.
Just for that gun.
If his weight or limberness doesn’t change, and he stands the same way each time like leaning up against the tree or something, he very well could feel the difference in recoil between different cartridges.
But I do think that’s the long way around the barn.
I do not view his idea as useful.
He could do the same thing with a standing breech, standing up against the tree. He would definitely feel the difference.
my theory is simply this...it takes a certain amount of recoil energy to cycle an a5, depending on the settings...less recoil energy will fail to cycle an a5...less recoil energy equates to less felt recoil...so, light loads should be identifed and then tested for felt recoil, for possible use in old double gons...if not a valid approach, then how else would one practially test the potential affect of factory loads on old gons...if not by shooting?
And remember that the A5 needs something to buck up against, to work. And if that isn’t there it won’t. An example might be hanging it from a string and then firing it.
Point being, if you want reproducible results, the test set up has to be reproducible.
Try two different loads of wildly different pressures, same speed and ejecta.
You probably won’t feel a difference, yet could blow the chamber or barrel on an old gun
What good would that do?
clap, why not just hold it to the shoulder?
an interesting experiment would be to fire various rst loads in an a5 to identify those that failed to cycle the action...
my hunch is that few or none would cycle the action...
Recoil is weight x speed
Don’t waste the ammunition
clap, felt recoil is a result of energy...in relation to weight...
that is why firing a load in an eight pound gun feels better than firing the same load in a six pound gun...
the point of all this is to find factory loads that produce relatively low felt recoil...
Ke is 1/2m (vxv)
Velocity change has a much greater effect on the recoil than the change of the charge weight.
Lots of people know that obviously you don’t
Recoil increases with the square of the velocity increase
You cannot reliably use whether or not an A-5 will cycle as a reliable determinant of ammunition suitability for an old shotgun
If you keep everything constant except for the ammunition you can use and A-5 to compare the various loads
But because of the complexity you are better off to use an old H&R single shot.
again, loads that do not produce enough energy to cycle an a5 also produce less felt recoil...than loads that do cycle an a5...
it is felt recoil that damages old gons...so the less the felt recoil, the less the potential for damage to your old gon...
tell me why this theory is false...
You cannot illuminate for the blind, what they refuse to see.
Ed, you are trying to use the A5 as a go/no go, gauge.
How do you know that nothing else is changing except the recoil of the cartridge?
How do you account for things like friction
Hang an A-5 on a string, put a string around the trigger and touch one off.
The math of recoil is clear.
The time element varies
Test it for yourself.
Jig up an A-5 against a tree so that nothing can move and start touching off ammunition.
You have a formula, so use it. Start with a 900 ft./s trainer load and see if it ejects them.
The speed of the load has the greatest impact on recoil.
Since you have two variables, test four loads at increasing velocity‘s, and then test four different payloads at the same velocity.
Otherwise, you won’t know which is which. Is it the load or is it velocity? the world doesn’t really want to know, lol.
About the best you will be able to come up with is that your particular A-5 needs at least X amount of recoil to eject a shell.
You won’t even be able to use the word reliably, because your universe of testing will be so small.
I doubt you were going to use $200 worth of RST ammunition to find out that kinetic energy equals 1/2 MV squared.
You cannot illuminate for the blind, what they refuse to see.
Yet you have spent a day and seven posts trying.
"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it." ― George Bernard Shaw
clap...you continue to suggest the quanitative approach to theoretically determine those advertised light factory loads that would produce low felt recoil...in order to validate your calculations, you would still have to test fire factory loads that theoretically fit your calculated criteria...without using a test platform, like an a5, you would have to go by feel only...
what i propose is a qualitative approach, that ignores calculated expected outcomes...instead, utilize a test platform to rule out those factory light loads that will cycle an a5... the idea being that those loads produce too much recoil energy to be suitable for use in old doublegons...and that those factory loads that produce too little recoil energy to cycle an a5, may or may not be suitable for use in old doublegons..,.
how else would one practically determine which factory loads produce the least felt recoil?
an stan, you remind me of one of those guys who steadfastly declared that it is theoretically impossible for man to fly...so why bother trying...
and when all is said and done, perhaps there are no advertised light factory loads that will fail to cycle an a5, held to ones shoulder in the normal shooting position...
but, it would be educational to find out via actual test firing...
Once again none of this makes sense, how do you account for fatigue, weight differences in firearms, different actions and mechanisms?
rar...as none of this makes any sense to you, why bother throwing up barriers...
your post in fact makes no sense...
If Ed uses the same gun in the same way, for that box of cartridges he could say his gun could or couldn’t eject them.
Then what?
My M11 might be different. I might be different. My grip lighter or heavier. My mass greater or lesser.
That was my point, you can’t use this testing concept for anything other than to say whether or not one gun will eject them or not. Held by one operator.
There’s no way for me to have any confidence that they would be light enough recoiling to not damage one of my vintage guns.
A far better way is to take an H&R single shot, and hold the buttstock squarely up against your forehead, while firmly placing the back of your head up against an incompressible concrete abutment.
The lighter loads will not allow you to see stars.
That is a far better go no go testing method.
if you sail west out of sight of land far enough you will fall off the edge of the earth and be lost for ever...
unless a sea monster swallows your ship first...
if you sail west out of sight of land far enough you will fall off the edge of the earth and be lost for ever...
unless a sea monster swallows your ship first...
Thinking outside the box does require removing one’s head from their posterior for best results....
Best,
Ted
so, ok then, lets approach this from a different perspective...
tell us what factory loads any of you have found suitable for use in old gons...
after all, why ignore the previous research of others...
perhaps, some of you have already sailed west to china and returned...
Well I was just telling my wife ,no one is more ignorant than zeke down the road ,and edd proves me wrong again
if you sail west out of sight of land far enough you will fall off the edge of the earth and be lost for ever...
unless a sea monster swallows your ship first...
I thought you were sounding like a flat-earther a bit earlier. Now that you have the friction rings lined up just right, did you know that the A5 was the favoured try gun platform during the golden age of shotguning? Quite a handy gun you've taken to.
well craig, be careful here singing the praises of an auto loader...afterall, this is a double gon forum, with strict rules as to what is acceptable content...
an we aint got no flat land here in nh, less you consider that little strip over there by the ocean...
an ah ax again:
- how else would one practially test the potential affect of factory loads on old gons...if not by shooting?
- tell us what factory loads any of you have found suitable for use in old gons?
it is unfortunate tthat none here seem to have an interest in discovering factury loads that may be suitable for use in old double gons...
ed,
Define “suitable”.
Best,
Ted
Ed, B&P F1 loads have been repeatedly shown to be suitable factory prepared loads for old side-by-side’s.
But it is not by design. More by accident.
Shotgun shells are manufactured to meet industry std specifications.
Not old shotgun specifications.
I’m guessing your Alzheimer’s is in full blaze these days.
I used to think you were perseverating on this stuff because you were being purposefully stupid
It looks more to me like some sort of organic brain disease now.
ted, in this context, suitable is a result of:
"then test fire in your strongest old double gon with good fluid steel barrels and see how that feels"...
do you got ah nudder metho dology?
clap, thru out this thread, you continue to issue personal insults, to what end i do not know nor care...in previous communications between us here, i do not recall you acting so juvenile...which is disappointing...
anyway, your reference to b&p shells is known to me...and appreciated...
wonder what other factory loads there are out there, in addition to rst of course, that have received wide acceptance for use in ole gons...
betcha, other manufacturers 12 gauge loads, with 7/8 ounce of shot might pass the "feels good" test , as well...thus making them "suitable" for use in ole gons..
course, some kind of mechanical test plarform could first be utilized to weed out those loads that produce to much felt recoil to be acceptable for test fireing...
I am trying to figure the sales angle edd is trying to establish.what is he trying to get some one to say ,to be used to hawk his guns?
this sounds interesting...
https://www.shenkshotshellco.com/shophomeand suggests there is a direct relationship of pressure to felt recoil...
Ed, the only relation that pressure has to recoil is the fact that without any chamber pressure, there will be no velocity of the ejecta. Recoil is the result of Kinetic energy produced by the load we fire in our guns.. Google the formula for calculating Kinetic energy, and you will see that pressure is not any part of that calculation.
In the calculation for recoil energy, the only variable components are mass and velocity. (I am neglecting the slight rearward jet effect of expelled gasses at the muzzle) The mass and velocity of the gun moving in the opposite direction of the shot, wad, and burned powder is what we call recoil, and that force, measured in ft./lbs. is kinetic energy. Other factors enter into "felt" or "perceived" recoil, such as stock design, buttplate area, etc. But chamber pressure is never a part of these calculations.
In other words, it does not matter if the peak chamber pressure that propels say a 1 1/4 ounce load to 1200 ft. per sec. was 5000, 10,000, or 15,000 psi. The recoil of that identical shot charge at that identical velocity in the same gun will be essentially equal. Of course, there will be a greater mass of the total ejecta if you propel that shot load with 3 1/2 drams of 2Fg black powder versus a much lighter charge of modern smokeless shotgun powder. Different powders and different components will produce different pressure curves, which explains why very different peak chamber pressures may produce the same velocity with the same shot charge. It isn't peak chamber pressure that determines muzzle velocity. It is the overall average pressure produced by the entire duration of the powder burning within the barrel.
And this is why certain powders with different burning rates are known to be best for creating loads that provide useful velocities at lower peak pressures. This is why we complain when powders like PB are discontinued. These are less likely to create excessive strain on Damascus barrels, or other mechanical components that may not withstand the pounding created by modern factory loads. Old stock wood tends to become more brittle or subject to damage with time and degradation from things like oil soaking, or becoming loose due to shrinkage of the bedding contact surfaces, etc. Using loads which produce lower velocity and contain lighter shot charges reduces the recoil which might otherwise damage old stocks.
You are not the only one who has confusion and misconceptions about this subject. It has been discussed literally thousands of times here and on other firearms forums. I hope this helps to explain why peak chamber pressure has virtually nothing to do with recoil energy calculations, and is not the sole reason we seek out lower pressure loads and lower velocity loads for our vintage doubles.
Some here will complain and insult you over your notions about pressure versus recoil. But those common misconceptions are not nearly as stupid as those of any gun owner who supports anti-gun Liberal Left Democrats. Some people need to learn to prioritize about who is more of a threat to the future of our gun rights.
shucks, an here ah thought the guys at shenk were on to sum thin...
course then...with none of the commercial ammo manufacturers publishing pressure data for their loads...
how else does one determine that a factory load is suitable for their old gon an old shoulder, except for making a judgement as to how it feels...
Well Ed, you could always send some rounds to Tom Armbrust for pressure testing. But the factory loads you buy today may have different components or different powders the next time you buy them. So if you find some factory load that is low enough pressure, it might be a good idea to stock up before they change. The major ammo makers do not tell us pressures, or notify us that they are switching powder, primers, etc. They just sell shells that are within SAAMI specs.
The only other options are to purchase ammo from suppliers like RST or B&P who specialize in low pressure ammo for vintage guns, or to resort to known low pressure handloads. It's a cost of enjoying the old stuff. No different than understanding that use of a modern multi-viscosity high detergent synthetic oil might not be good to use in a vintage car engine. If you use a vintage collector car as a 15k mile per year daily driver, it will soon wear out and have problems. Old guns are no different. So I also own some modern doubles, pumps, and semi-autos that can digest about anything I want to feed them without any worries.
Lots of guys assume that they can judge a load to be low pressure going by the velocity, the level of recoil, the sound of the report, or whether it is low or high brass. Unfortunately, it isn't that easy. So a lot of shooters are simply operating on blissful ignorance, and using loads that might not be the best choice for their vintage doubles. Most get away with it because they just don't shoot enough to notice any damage. It may take years before they finally notice their gun is a bit loose, or the top lever has moved left of center, or the stock has developed a split. Then they come here wondering what went wrong, and asking who can repair the damage.
The first thing that comes to mind when I see one of these coming my way is..........PUT A SHELL CATCHER IN THAT THING!! I don't want your hulls bouncing off of my gun when we're shooting trap and I'm on 5 stand and you're on 4................................ I was shooting in Florida and some guy was on my left with an A5. One of his hulls bounced off of my barrel. I spent the rest of the round hunkered over my gun trying to protect it. It wasn't long after that hull bounced off of my barrel, that I was hunkered over my gun- protecting it and one of his empties landed in my left hand that was down at my side. I caught it and stuck it in my pocket. After the round was over I went over to him and gave him back his hull and told him that they DO make shell catchers for those things. His remark was, "Uuuuhhhhh, shell catchers??"
uh jimmy....
dis tread aint bout a5's...
it is about testing for low recoiling factory loads...
using an auto loader as a test platform...
theory being that if an auto loader will not cycle a round...
then that round may be comfortable and suitable for use in old doublegons...