|
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
|
|
|
|
5 members (Richard Hale, NitroX, 3 invisible),
979
guests, and
3
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics40,274
Posts572,897
Members14,687
| |
Most Online32,084
Jun 14th, 2026
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 602 Likes: 39
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 602 Likes: 39 |
2-piper
Agreed, many factors impacting felt recoil.
Like I said initially I am a skeptic. When I get a chance I'll weigh the wads & also the shot drops as I'm using #8 with the PB load & #9 with the Clays load (the same non calibrated bushing for both loads)so weight probably differs somewhat.
I have a chronograph so I could attempt to check velocity as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,575 Likes: 182
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,575 Likes: 182 |
Miller, do you have anything tangible on which to base your "suspicions" vs the tests Thomas reported? He refers to them in both his "Gun Book" (p. 235) and in "Shotguns and Cartridges" (pp 154-155). In neither place does he specify the type of powders used, although in the latter he says that they were "carried out by IMI when they were developing their MODERN RANGE of powders and ammunition." (Emphasis mine.) To me, that makes it sound like they're testing new powder vs new powder to see if there's any difference in recoil. Not much point in testing against the old bulk powder loads if those are being dropped.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Larry;
lets just say that with 75 years under my belt I'm suspicious of any thing which is carried pout which results in a stated "Advantage" for something which someone has to "Sell". Now if they got a unanimous result in a blind test then some factor caused that one load to recoil less than the other one. Now all down through the years 99.999% of folks are pushing that a slower powder results in less "Felt" recoil than a faster one, the exact opposite (180° apart) of what IMI reported. Man put your thinking Cap on for a change. They "DID NOT" get unanimous results shooting two loads with a 3 grain difference in powder charges. The only obvious conclusion that could result in a heavier recoil for the slower powder was that it used a heavier charge. What slower powder would have used a charge significantly heavier other than the bulk powders. I believe that bulk powders were much more popular to a later date in England than they were in the US. I will, have to say you seem to be totally ignorant of Advertising Technics. How better to give their "New Range" of powders a kick start than compare one of them with an old standby & show it would push an equal charge of shot to equal velocity & produce less "Kick" in the process. "IF" they did not accomplish this by using a powder carrying a "Significantly" heavier powder charge then the only other conclusion is they were totally dishonest & gave that "Other" powder more velocity to ensure it recoiled heavier. I am not accusing them of that, but it is totally understandable how they accomplished their purpose. Still awaiting an explanation from you as to how they did it, instead of just always knocking a totally reasonable one, apparently just because it comes from ME. All I can say is man Don't Worry 'Bout the Mule Just Load the Wagon, I'll Pull It.
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,120 Likes: 86
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,120 Likes: 86 |
Recent project here has been loading for a 1902 Parker DH.
It's one of those things I didn't go looking for, it just sort of found me. It's pretty darn nice for a 'shooter grade' and whoever stocked it apparently did so just for me.
Two barrel set. Damascus and a fluid steel set added by Remington. I'm pretty excited about it... it shoots very well.
IMR 7625 being on the current list of unobtainables, I settled on this for a load:
STS hull
W209
12.9 gr. AA Lite
CB-0178
7/8oz of hard shot.
This is a book load, advertised at 5,400 psi and 1050 fps.
It takes a #20 bushing in my Grabber to drop 12.9 of "Lite", all the sources show a #19. This runs 980 over my chrono, so it's a little slower than listed.
It goes off with a nice 'crack', and while a tad dirty it's not excessively so.
Interesting that there is only one powder listed as 'faster' than AA Lite, and we can build a nice low recoil, low pressure shell with Lite using 7/8 oz. of shot.
"The price of good shotgunnery is constant practice" - Fred Kimble
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,575 Likes: 182
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,575 Likes: 182 |
Larry;
lets just say that with 75 years under my belt I'm suspicious of any thing which is carried pout which results in a stated "Advantage" for something which someone has to "Sell". Now if they got a unanimous result in a blind test then some factor caused that one load to recoil less than the other one. Now all down through the years 99.999% of folks are pushing that a slower powder results in less "Felt" recoil than a faster one, the exact opposite (180° apart) of what IMI reported. Man put your thinking Cap on for a change. They "DID NOT" get unanimous results shooting two loads with a 3 grain difference in powder charges. The only obvious conclusion that could result in a heavier recoil for the slower powder was that it used a heavier charge. What slower powder would have used a charge significantly heavier other than the bulk powders. I believe that bulk powders were much more popular to a later date in England than they were in the US. I will, have to say you seem to be totally ignorant of Advertising Technics. How better to give their "New Range" of powders a kick start than compare one of them with an old standby & show it would push an equal charge of shot to equal velocity & produce less "Kick" in the process. "IF" they did not accomplish this by using a powder carrying a "Significantly" heavier powder charge then the only other conclusion is they were totally dishonest & gave that "Other" powder more velocity to ensure it recoiled heavier. I am not accusing them of that, but it is totally understandable how they accomplished their purpose. Still awaiting an explanation from you as to how they did it, instead of just always knocking a totally reasonable one, apparently just because it comes from ME. All I can say is man Don't Worry 'Bout the Mule Just Load the Wagon, I'll Pull It. Miller, you don't have that many years on me. And being that my first "real" job out of college was with CIA, and that I spent the next 30 years--either full or part time--with a Top Secret security clearance in that part of the government often targeted by conspiracy theorists as the source of numerous nefarious plots, I'm big on proof rather than "suspicions". And however well-founded you may think your suspicions are, you've answered my question: you don't have any proof that the tests were newer powders vs older, bulk powders. Not about you at all; rather about the lack of proof. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,468
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,468 |
OH gawd, not the old "I used to be CIA" thing again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,575 Likes: 182
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,575 Likes: 182 |
OH gawd, not the old "I used to be CIA" thing again. Well Pete . . . you suggesting that no one's ever accused the CIA of being involved in various conspiracies . . . based on questionable evidence? Ever meet any 9/11 "truthers"? And did you know that the Boston Marathon bombing was also a CIA operation? The truth is out there! Endlessly amusing, to those of us who actually worked there. But there were plenty of conspiracies about how to get promoted faster, or how to get out from behind a desk in DC and land a good overseas assignment.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Well Larry, lets just say that I have offered a viable "Reason" that a load containing a fast powder would be "Unanimously" picked in a "Blind" test as giving less Felt recoil. So far you have offered a Big Fat Zero, yet you keep bringing up this "Fact" with absolutely no Data. Your "Arguments" re Advertisements just don't hold water. Using your reasoning Alliant Powder Co would have had absolutely no reason to promote American Select as giving less felt recoil than their own Red Dot, which they were not discontinuing, & which they stated had made more one hundred straights than all other powders combined, yet they did just this in 1996.
No, I do not have proof positive as to what powders were used in this test as the Great Guru whom you quote so often about it either didn't know or didn't bother to give it. I have yet to here a plausible "Reason" other than the one I have offered. Thomas' thoughts that with the fast powder the recoil "Occured so Rapidly" one just didn't have time to feel it was beyond laughable, it was totally Ludicrous. I only give my thoughts after you have spouted off about it. My advise is "Give us some Hard Data on it" or throw it out the window & forget this test ever existed. If you continue to bring it up I will continue to dispute it, & that's not a threat, its a promise. Fair Enough??
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,785 Likes: 385
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,785 Likes: 385 |
....I'm big on proof rather than "suspicions". And however well-founded you may think your suspicions are, you've answered my question: you don't have any proof that the tests were newer powders vs older, bulk powders. Not about you at all; rather about the lack of proof. Thanks. If you take a quick look back at your previous comment, I see; 'to me, that makes it sound like' and 'not much point in testing'. It seems you could conclude that only 'new' powders were tested, and you could make conclusions on excluded powders. Not personal at all, but curious how valid some well-founded assumptions might be without apparent proof.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,575 Likes: 182
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,575 Likes: 182 |
The point is that there's no proof either way, Craig. Miller has "suspicions". His explanation is plausible--but it's at best an educated guess. And it's a known fact, from previous posts, that he does not think much of Gough Thomas, so he's going to have "suspicions" in just about every case where the evidence is not clear. So there's some bias at work. But we also have to remember that Thomas was an engineer, and it seems unlikely he would have discounted the fact that the faster-burning powder charge was only half as heavy (in terms of bulk) as the slower-burning charge. Just another way of looking at it.
But the whole concept of "felt recoil" is pretty tricky. Some people discount it entirely. Assuming the same gun and same shooter, they'll contend that one shouldn't notice any difference from one load to the next unless there's a difference that can be measured, principally either velocity or shot charge weight.
|
|
|
|
|
