|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics40,273
Posts572,872
Members14,687
| |
Most Online32,084
Jun 14th, 2026
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,045 Likes: 139
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,045 Likes: 139 |
Doug, Well, that was a little uncalled for, don't you think!!??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,292
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,292 |
Doug, Well, that was a little uncalled for, don't you think!!?? NO....
Doug
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,585 Likes: 2347
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,585 Likes: 2347 |
I read back through the posts and there was mention made several times about pressures, but none of them said anything about pressure being related to recoil.
The only reason I mentioned pressure was because of how it pertains to using these shells in older doubles. Your post is the only one that I can find that made mention of anything relating pressure and recoil.
SRH Stan, the title of the thread is "Soft RECOILING Loads". Generally, what comes after relates to what's suggested in the title. Or at least that's what I've learned as a writer. If I wanted to relate pressure to older doubles, then I would have made that clear by saying: "For those of you shooting older guns requiring lower pressure loads . . . " Otherwise, one is likely to conclude--as I did--that we're somehow mixing up the concepts of pressure and recoil. Larry, I am not going to banter with you on this. You misconstrued the thread. Period. You have shown over the years that you will climb a fence post to argue over nothing. Have your say, now. You always want the last post. But, I'm through with it. SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,380 Likes: 558
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,380 Likes: 558 |
I have never bought into the idea that pressure has nothing to do with recoil. I believe it does.
Years ago, I was shooting the Remington promo "black shells" that were 1 oz. loads. I knew the little bastards kicked like a tied mule, but never gave it much thought. A few years later I read an article in Sporting Clays magazine where those loads were pressure-tested along with some others. The Remingtons were measured at 13,900 psi!
JR
Last edited by John Roberts; 08/29/12 07:03 PM.
Be strong, be of good courage.
God bless America, long live the Republic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,045 Likes: 139
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,045 Likes: 139 |
Physics 101: Force = Mass x Acceleration. Pressure = Force / Area
Socialism is almost the worst.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,380 Likes: 558
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,380 Likes: 558 |
Physics 101: Force = Mass x Acceleration. Pressure = Force / Area = recoil JR
Be strong, be of good courage.
God bless America, long live the Republic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
When talking of one load having more or less recoil than another unless both loads have been carfully weighed for total ejecta weight & accurate velocity measurements made of the speed, You actually don't Have a Clue as to Why. Reading the listed velocity & pressure from a loading manual is not a guarantee that is what you actually acheived. Weight times velocity accounts for about 98% of recoil, all other factors make up the remaining insignificant 2%.
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 680
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 680 |
Miller I thought the saying was that "Larry is not the sharpest knife in the drawer".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,380 Likes: 558
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,380 Likes: 558 |
If you had two loads, both 1 oz. @ 1200 fps, and one generated 7000 psi, and the other generated 12,000 psi, which would you pick to shoot 100 rounds? Hmmm?
JR
Be strong, be of good courage.
God bless America, long live the Republic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,585 Likes: 2347
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,585 Likes: 2347 |
Assuming equal ejecta weights, and equal velocities, one shell may develop much lower pressure than the other. One reason for this can be burning rate. The one which develops the lower pressure of the two can also have a pressure curve that takes place over a longer period of time (and subsequently uses more of the barrel to do so) than the higher pressure load. This charts as a more rounded pressure peak. The other pressure peak can resemble more of a spike, and be taking place over a shorter period of time. The one with the "spiked" pressure peak will exhibit a sharper recoil sensation than the one with the more rounded peak which occurs over a longer period of time.
I, and countless others on this BBS, have experienced and described the perceived recoil on two different shells, of equal velocity and shot load, as having vastly different recoil sensations. Way too much to be explained by 4 or 5 grs. difference in powder weight. One being most often described as a sharp lick, the other as more of a push.
All of us are not the same crazy. There IS something to this.
SRH
Last edited by Stan; 08/30/12 06:39 AM.
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
|
