WOW!...that AC post was the original tar baby. May I tactfully say that in the bedding systems my company has designed for the military, the contract calls for time traces of the impulse of the projectile moving down the barrel and that of the propellant gasses exiting the muzzle after the projectile leaves the bore. These are two different rearward forces, each has its own characteristic shape and taken together they add up to total recoil.

With that said, if you want to tame the effect of recoil in a hunting rifle, use a pistol grip or thumb hole stock and wear a recoil pad. Even premium butt mounted pads will hurt after 40 ft lbs of free recoil because they have edges that stretch your skin. Keep your elbow down and the grip will impart a fair amount of energy to your hand and arm in a position where it can take up 15 to 20 FP comfortably. Most shooters can tolerate up to 70 or 80 FP doing this in a standing position, and 20 less when seated at a bench up straight.

Interesting comments Sabot.

1.) What bedding system are you supplying to the military?

2.) How did you measure the 'impulse'?

3.) What instrumention did you use to measure the 'impulse' with?

4.) What was your sample rate?

quote:

Most shooters can tolerate up to 70 or 80 FP doing this in a standing position, and 20 less when seated at a bench up straight.

That is VERY interesting.

Here is something else that is interesting. When I split wood, I use a 15 lb sledge hammer. I typically just drop it from a height of about 8.5 feet and it hits the log about 2.5 feet from the ground. That is a net fall of 6 feet.

The velocity of the hammer head when it strikes the wedge is = 19.65 ft/sec

The kinetic energy of the hammer head when it strikes the wedge is = 89 ft pounds.

That severely deforms the wedge too! Want to guess what happens to a rifle stock that gets struck with that much energy? How about your shoulder (I'll even duct tape a recoil pad on the hammer head for ya)? I didn't think so.

Thanks,
ASS_CLOWN

AC -

The most impressive one was the 120mm Main tank gun for the Army. Another company used our data to refine the size and type of the muzzle brake and make best use of then available gun mount technology. This gun really is a gun...no rifling as the 5600 fps velocity will strip it out with 1 round. Ammo is caseless and surprisingly light. Projectile is a tungsten or depleted uranium dart encased in a sabot.

This is the one that popped 312 republican guard tanks and other armored vehicles in 15 minutes during the battle of messina or medina ridge (SP?)in Desert Storm.

We did our testing on a hydralic suspended stand with 112 sensors measuring pressure changes in 1/1000 sec increments. Still one of the first ones mounted in a tank jumped out of its mounts, more or less proving that it was a good idea NOT to have crew in there until the bugs were worked out. The data showed that three mounts were sheared off in the cold by the force of the sabot/dart moving down the bbl, and the escaping gas tossed it back into the breach compartment. Who says handloading is SAFE?

Accuracy MINIMUMs a that time were 1 meter in 4000 meters, so much for the need for rifling. The gun will also shoot full bore diameter HE rounds at close range, but we did not test that application.

Most important finding was that it should NOT be fired over the heads of friendlies, as the sabot petals are lethal for over 400 yards.

A third contractor shot at various types of armor...even full sized tank targets were too hot to touch for 12 hours after 1 hit.

Sabot,

Since you are using a smoothbore I can believe everything you said. In a smooth bore the bullet does in fact generate recoil. This is not the case with a rifle, at least not to any appreciable degree.

ASS_CLOWN

quote:

Originally posted by ASS_CLOWN:
Sabot,

Since you are using a smoothbore I can believe everything you said. In a smooth bore the bullet does in fact generate recoil. This is not the case with a rifle, at least not to any appreciable degree.

ASS_CLOWN

What drugs do you take? I mean that, seriously, so we can call the approriate people when you are off them?

Are you really this F'in STUPID?

GO buy you a remington 12 ga, with a smooth and a rifled barrel, and shoot it with full size slugs.

and then tell me that there's a DIFFERENCE in the same length barrel that you can tell?

yep yep yep, chucklehead, and then come back and report that "wow, my math must be wrong, as the rifled barrel had more felt recoil"


until you do, then you really don't have any credibility on the subject.

jeffe

AC,
I hope you are learning some lessons about "pearls before swine".

Choose writing a book over reacting to flames.

Let them have the last word. It never ends.

comments on rifled vs smoothbore shotgun?

jeffe

Clark, if 10% of the stuff you have posted about you have actually done it true you of all people should be able to see through AC's drivel.

More importantly, if you are using his calculations (on casehead strength, for example) as predictors for your experiments, I would think you would be VERY interested in the validity of his calculations and math ability. Independant verification is CRITICAL to this...and failing miserably in this little topic...among others...

The VAST majority of the time, when all you see are headlights coming toward you, YOU are the one heading the wrong way down the one way street.

Clark,

quote:

I hope you are learning some lessons about "pearls before swine".

Yes I am, but to be brutally honest that is one of the major reasons I still post on this thread. Here I can be talked badly too, something which simply doesn't happen in REAL world. Strangely, I find it refreshing.

For example, on this thread we have a chemical engineer calling into question my creditials. I post as 'ASS_CLOWN', for cryin' out loud.

He further questions my capacity to perform simple math.

I find all his comments immensely funny! He says there is friction acting on the bullet. Why of course there is, but how does that friction get there? Evidently he knows NOT how to calculate frictional forces. I strongly suspect he also is ignorant of the effects of acceleration of the dynamic coefficient of friction. I am also convinced this gentleman is not familiar with a concept called thrust.

The other thing I find hilarious is that someone would use a sampling rate of 1000 Hz for internal ballistics work.

quote:

We did our testing on a hydralic suspended stand with 112 sensors measuring pressure changes in 1/1000 sec increments

If you know anything about internal ballistics and data acquisition you will immediately understand why I find that sampling rate funny.

So I am now tired of this silly game, and will refrain from discussing it with them.

ASS_CLOWN

AC WROTE---"In a smooth bore the bullet does in fact generate recoil. This is not the case with a rifle, at least not to any appreciable degree."

AC-- That is goofy.The man said that initial impulse,projectile in the barrel, sheared off the mounts.And the 1/1000 of a second( known
as a milli-second in pressure curve charts) sampling rate will do just fine, as an example, rifle with a 26 inch barrel,
in 30 06, the bullet is about 2/3 the way down the bore in a milli-second, so the sampling rate on a tank barrel 15 times longer would get plenty of readings and compared to sensors on the barrel mounts, easily determined that they sheared off,while bullet was still in barrel.And that saboted deal isn't even a real heavy projectile by tank standards.

AC, your way off base.Wonder about Clark too.
Ac you comparing gun recoil to getting hit with a sledge is like assuming that everyone is going to let the gun get a run at them, so that they would get hurt.That is silly.

And the smooth bore operation still has to have a large amount of friction, as sabot has to expand and seal against the huge gase pressure.
If a barrel is rifled( just friction to be overcome) just add little more
energy under the pressure curve, to get projectile out the same speed,
but the recoil characteristics are the same.
Ie, recoil starts when bullet starts, at ignition.

And in the shotgun reference Jeff made the
rifled slug barrel gives a a little more felt recoil than a smooth in ones I shot.Reason is the rifled in getting bullet started causes
a little earlier, slightly higher peak
pressure, while smooth gave a softer start, even though they ended up with about same
speed.

THE RECOIL IMPULSE IS A CLOSE MIRROR IMAGE OF THE PRESSURE CURVE AND STARTS AT THE SAME TIME. Write this on the board a hundred times and maybe it will sink in...

IE, the gun gains its energy to move, similiar to the way the bullet does.They are just
two items being forced apart by an application of energy between them and the testing mentioned above with tank barrel proves
that the major component of recoil(the
projectile and powder in the barrel)
starts happening from ignition..Ed.

quote:

For example, on this thread we have a chemical engineer calling into question my creditials. I post as 'ASS_CLOWN', for cryin' out loud.

I'll give you part of this...your handle makes the questions sort of redundant...

...and I'm not a Chem. E., just got a minor in chemisty during the time I worked on that degree. I'll let you continue to stew out my final college major...

CDH,

I apologize, I misread that post. You did not say you were a Chemical Engineer.

I also noticed in my reading that you have had a Civil Engineer P.E. (most civils are PEs you know) review your analysis. Not surprising he agreed with you.

Well now we have a civil engineer and a mystery man, saying that the uncerified mechanic is full of crap! Must be so then.

Bye now,
ASS_CLOWN

quote:

Originally posted by Sabot:
...if you want to tame the effect of recoil in a hunting rifle, use a pistol grip or thumb hole stock and wear a recoil pad. ... Keep your elbow down and the grip will impart a fair amount of energy to your hand and arm in a position where it can take up 15 to 20 FP comfortably. Most shooters can tolerate up to 70 or 80 FP doing this in a standing position, and 20 less when seated at a bench up straight.

Hey Sabot, Could you describe this a bit more for a right-handed person?

I don't mean technically, but rather the direction of the right-hand pressure on the stock "prior" to the shot as you visualize it.

---

I've shot a good bit over the years and other than for pistols/revolvers, I don't believe I've ever "pushed" against a stock on a rifle(thumbhole or pistol grip) with my right hand. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by ASS_CLOWN:
CDH,

I apologize, I misread that post. You did not say you were a Chemical Engineer.

I also noticed in my reading that you have had a Civil Engineer P.E. (most civils are PEs you know) review your analysis. Not surprising he agreed with you.

Well now we have a civil engineer and a mystery man, saying that the uncerified mechanic is full of crap! Must be so then.

Bye now,
ASS_CLOWN

scott,
once again, you have no facts...

most PE's are civils, not most civil's are PE... if you had a CLUE what it took to become one, you'd know the inherent flasehood of your statement.

oh, wait, this is your second "bye" on this thread? then i guess you'll never answer the smoothbore shotgun vs rifled one.

jeffe

Hot Core:

If you are hanging on to the pistol grip, the rifle has to accelerate your arm too, adding to the total weight of the gun.

Ass Clown, you don't have to have a engineering license to see you are full of it. I suggest you read a book called "Understanding Firearm Ballistics" by Robert Rinker. It is easy to understand for the layman.

When my father was designing guns to sell to Rock Island Arsenal in the 50's, he would explian to me about recoil.

50 years later, we have the same engineering education, and he is STILL explaining recoil mechanisms to me.

I have not grown into a gun designer, but I do recognize talent. Have you read the Seecamp patent for recoil springs? It allows low index springs to be used in a short space. My Para Ordanance 45 with 3" barrel has this mechanism.

A_C, Simplest way to prove your stance is to show us the maths... I'm sure one or two of us can add up... oh, and btw, just because my profile might show my current profession, it doesn't mean I've always had that title...

I've had a fair bit to do with resolving issues pertaining to the reliability of certain bits and pieces of military hardware - and a lot of this was directly related to the stresses on the projectile (and delivery mechanism) generated by recoil and/or launch dynamics...

I might even be able to understand the maths...

Ruger-He showed us some math, but it was applied wrong in 3 or 4 threads discussing recoil. I have studied internal ballistics
for 55 years or thereabouts and in college physics, math,and chemistry majors, and
his wrong application of math is very apparent.
Like he says rifling has such a higher co-efficient of friction that it pushes bareel ahead, Well it does have a higher co-efficient
of friction, and it takes more pressure to get bullet out the barrel at same speed as a
smooth barrel.So you add more pressure--
Now pay attention AC and Clark-------------

THE INCREASED PRESSURE NEEDED TO OVERCOME
FRICTION TO GET BULLET GOING FORWARD, WILL PUT MORE THRUST ON THE BREECH, SO ANY AFFECT THAT THE BULLET HAS ON DRAGGING BARREL FORWARD IS
MORE THAN COMPENSATED FOR---Drum roll please--BY THE GREATER PRESSURE PUSHING BACK AGAINST THE BREECH.....

Making the gun start to recoil at the instant
of ignition.Just that simple.Factors that has to be overcome, bullet wt and friction, to get bullet out at the speed you want, will be overcome by more pressure, up to the limits of the gun. Said pressure increases also puts more force on the breech giving gun recoil, whether high or low friction,heavy or light bullets.I say again just that simple....Ed.

Ed,

You funny!!!! Friction is relatively small compared to the forward directed forces applied to the barrel by the bullet which generate the relatively small friction force to begin with.

The bullet pushes forward on the barrel, this is called thrust. The axial thrust force is equal to the bullet's applied force (pressure times bore area) times the cosine of the rifling angle.

Remember that the gas pressure exerts the SAME FORCE ON THE BULLET AS ON THE LOCKED BREECH.

So the recoil force imparted to the rifle as a whole by the bullet is equal to. Sign convention shall be: positive is in the forward direction (same as bullets path), recoil is therefore a negative force.

Force of expanding gas (pressure*area) = 4472 lbs (0.308" bore at 60,000 psi)

Force on base of bullet = 4472 lbs
Force bullet exerts on barrel (thrust) = 4455 *cosine 5 degrees = lbs
Force on breech lock = -4472 pounds

Net force on rifle system = 4455+(-4472) = -17 lbs

Peak force of muzzle blast (expellant gases striking atmosphere) = for a 0.308" bore and a muzzle pressure of 15,000 psi = -1118 lbs!

So in the above example the PEAK bullet recoil force is 1.5% of the total recoil! The math would be 17 / (1118+17) * 100%.

Hardly a significant number.

The rifling angle for the vast majority of shoulder held rifles falls between ~ 5 and 7 degrees.

ASS_CLOWN

EDIT - I adjusted the example load to match with a specific bore diameter and peak chamber pressure.

scott,
are you still posting on this before you shoot the shotgun? now, wait, i thought you left this thread twice already
jeffe

jeffeosso,

My rifled barrel shotgun don't kick for shit! It is a Benelli M1. Unfortunately, for your camp's argument the Benelli M1 does fit your recoil model very well. The bullets recoil force moves the bolt assembly very nicely. The recoil spring also does an EXCELLENT job of 'soaking' up the muzzle blast generated recoil as well

Sorry, but I posted the math AGAIN so that you intellectuals could try and figure it out. I try REAL hard to ignore you ignoramuses though.

ASS_CLOWN

quote:

Force on breech lock = -4472 pounds

Force breech lock applies to receiver, -4472 lbf (using your numbers)
Force receiver applies to stock, -4472 lbf
Force stock applies to shooters shoulder, -4472 lbf

Force required to insert this information into an ASS_CLOWN's neural pathways and make it stick, infinite

Even a simple uncertified auto mechanic like you claim to be should understand the transfer of forces from linked objects...that bump in the road moves the tire, which moves the axle, which moves the springs, which move the frame, which move the seat, which moves the driver...or does it ALL disappear in the springs as 'elastic strain'???

Thanks, after that bout of food poisioning the other day I needed a chuckle...

CDH,

Your even funnier than Ed!

You also a simpleton!

Sorry you so dumb.

quote:

Force breech lock applies to receiver, -4472 lbf (using your numbers)
Force receiver applies to stock, -4472 lbf
Force stock applies to shooters shoulder, -4472 lbf

All that true, BUT THE BARREL IS PULLING FORWARD ON THE BREECH LOCK & STOCK( to the tune of 4455 pounds). SO THE SHOULDER ONLY FEELS -4472 + 4455 = -17 POUNDS.

The muzzle blast is -1118 pounds of RECOIL! Tad more than you bullet's -17 pounds, eh.

Sorry that your BS analysis is just that BS! Always has been and always will be. The only way your analysis works is if you COMPLETELY IGNORE THE FORCES IMPARTED TO THE RIFLE BARREL BY THE BULLET (or you are shooting massless bullets). Just because you do not like the REAL answer doesn't mean it isn't so. I suggest you learn to deal with your shortcomings, instead of attempting to ignore them.

About the only guns I can think of that fit your analysis are BB guns since the BB is smaller in diameter than the bore and the bore is smooth; therefore, the BB doesn't impart any appreciable force to the barrel. Of course we all know BB guns don't kick too much, they have practically NO muzzle pressure, afterall. A smooth bore with a load diameter smaller than the firearm's bore diameter would also fit your erroneous excuse of a firearm in recoil.

The simple truth is that the bullet, receiver, barrel is a CLOSED sytem in equilibrium (or very very close to it). There is NO appreciable recoil until the bullet leaves the muzzle.

Heck you did not even realize the Sir Isaac Newton was not speaking to Momentum with any of his three laws of motion. He was/is speaking SOLELY to force! You had plenty of company in that arena though, PATHETIC!

ASS_CLOWN

Ac-Your trying a rotten snowjob again.
You are misapplying the math-
You only had one thing right; IE same
pressure on bullet as on breech.

Now all the things you have wrong---

You had to high muzzle pressure in example
unless specifically loaded that way-

You state that friction is real small, but give us math that shows 99%of the energy applied to
the bullet is transferred to the barrel,
while bullet is moving up the barrel,
so how is it transferred to barrel if friction is small.OR, Do you mean that bullets energy
is transferred to barrel by the force needed to engrave rifling.And the bullet is engraved in
the first .2 milliseconds of the operation, and doesn't have to be done again.

And your wrong about thinking that all energy applied to bullet is needed to overcome the
engraving of the rifling, minus your cosine crap
which is insignificant.A good share of the energy is needed to accelerate the mass of the bullet up to speed; ie only about 40% is need to overcome friction(against barrel and engraving rifling)In an efficient rifling setup, less..Both engraving rifling and side
friction,are friction.And you stating that 4400 plus lbs are transferred to barrel by bullet when there is only that being applied to the base of bullet to start with, is crap. Where is energy coming from to accelerate
the mass of the bullet. Only part of that energy applied to bullet is need to overcome
friction in the barrel(rifling, friction against sides).

And a real biggie you make no mention of the time the two components of recoil are working to accelerate the gun, to make the recoil.
Force has to be applied through a distance to
do some work, like recoil a gun, and distance means it takes time to do it.

So here is what really happens, first keep math
simple, the force on breech and bullet
averages 30 k for the length of barrel(50k
to start and 10k to muzzle, which is still high) giving average force on bullet and breech
of 30k(50 + 10 divided by 2), for 3006, gives thust of 2300 lbs on breech rounded off,minus 40% that bullet
transfers to barrel, giving 1380 lbs net thrust,
being applied to breech in case of a 30 06 for time bullet is in barrel,about 1.4
milliseconds. Now the 10 k at muzzle gives a force of 760 lbs being appied for about .2 milliseconds, as the bullet is out and pressure
gone in that time.

SO WHAT IS BIGGEST COMPONENT OF RECOIL--

MUZZLE BLAST 760 LBS FOR .2 MILLISECONDS-NO

OR BULLET WITH 1380 FOR 1.4 MILLISECONDS-Yes

You give imbeciles a bad name. ONE has nearly
two times the pressure applied for 7 times as long, as the other........
So which is the greatest component of recoil??
Da Boolit Boss, Da Boolit.....

PS-You can't take all the force imparted to the bullet and say barrel gets it all, as there is none left to accelerate the bullet.All of your math is a mis-applied snow job.Your stupid,
if you think we can't see how your math has
no bearing on actual events, relating accelerating bullets out of a gun and accelerating a gun backwards.
And you accusing us of ignoring the amount of energy bullet gives to barrel is crap.We said
40%. You ignored the amount of energy needed to accelerate bullet.Known as force x time and
thus same force x time accelerates gun.Plus the little that muzzle blast adds.

quote:

Originally posted by hubel458:

Now pay attention AC and Clark-------------

THE INCREASED PRESSURE NEEDED TO OVERCOME
FRICTION TO GET BULLET GOING FORWARD, WILL PUT MORE THRUST ON THE BREECH, SO ANY AFFECT THAT THE BULLET HAS ON DRAGGING BARREL FORWARD IS
MORE THAN COMPENSATED FOR---Drum roll please--BY THE GREATER PRESSURE PUSHING BACK AGAINST THE BREECH.....

That reminds me of when I told my father that my over pressure 38 Super loads had stretched the latch on a break top 38 S&W Iver Johnson revolver.
He corrected me and said that the only force on the latch was the barrel friction and ~ half the recoil on the mass of the barrel.

True, that high pressure load will likely be indirectly able to make more recoil and sustain more friction, but the pressure had no direct effect.

It took me about two days to understand what he said in a minute. But I don't feel bad not being all that bright. I would like to experiment with a latch top revolver frame in a vice and shoot a very high presssure load with slightly undersized bullet with only a toothpick in shear as a latch pin.

The force on the revolver latch is the moment
(torque if you will) required to pull the barrel up as the revolver recoils.
And yes it recoils while the bullet is still in the barrel.
Good Luck!

Ed,

quote:

PS-You can't take all the force imparted to the bullet and say barrel gets it all, as there is none left to accelerate the bullet.All of your math is a mis-applied snow job.Your stupid,
if you think we can't see how your math has
no bearing on actual events, relating accelerating bullets out of a gun and accelerating a gun backwards.
And you accusing us of ignoring the amount of energy bullet gives to barrel is crap.We said
40%. You ignored the amount of energy needed to accelerate bullet.Known as force x time and
thus same force x time accelerates gun.Plus the little that muzzle blast adds

With the above quoted statement from you I rest my case! It clearly shows your lack of understanding of how a bullet and barrel interact. The bullet must overcome the frictional forces to acclerate. The actual forces imparted to the barrel by the bullet are MUCH MUCH higher than the friction force.

Your math is so skewed to support your 'belief' of what is going on it isn't even funny anymore. The muzzle blasts lasts considerably longer than 0.0002 seconds also, a more ACCURATE number would be 0.02 seconds, or about 20 times longer than the bullet is in the bore.

Believe what you want to believe, I don't care. If you think the world is flat and the sun revolves around the Earth that is fine with me too.

I can run a jack screw through a rifle's bolt and push the bullets out of the barrel all day long, and the barrel/reciever will never move and will not require any support. I can push the bullets out at a constant acceleration or variable acceleration and the result is the same, NO movement of the barreled action! This is simply because the forces acting on the ENTIRE system are in equilibrium (or so damned close to it their out of balance force is not sufficiently large to overcome the inertia (mass) of the barreled action and make it move).

It is quite clear that you and the other's of your ilk are not going to attempt to understand the error of your ways. You simply twist the math (or facts) to support whatever you THINK the right answer is. So like I have said before, believe whatever it is you wish to believe. Reality could care less about what you think it is.

ASS_CLOWN

Not sure why this always has to degenerate into a pissing contest, but... let me ask a question:
Tame recoil with a thunb hole stock? I always thought that a thumbhole stock would be the last thing you wanted on a heavy recoiling rifle.
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by ASS_CLOWN:
I can run a jack screw through a rifle's bolt and push the bullets out of the barrel all day long, and the barrel/reciever will never move and will not require any support. I can push the bullets out at a constant acceleration or variable acceleration and the result is the same, NO movement of the barreled action! This is simply because the forces acting on the ENTIRE system are in equilibrium (or so damned close to it their out of balance force is not sufficiently large to overcome the inertia (mass) of the barreled action and make it move).
ASS_CLOWN

so, NOW you are saying that rifling vs smoth borehas no effect if there's recoil or not?

interesting change of position from

quote:

Originally posted by ASS_CLOWN:
Sabot,

Since you are using a smoothbore I can believe everything you said. In a smooth bore the bullet does in fact generate recoil. This is not the case with a rifle, at least not to any appreciable degree.

ASS_CLOWN

Scotty, the question wasn't what your SUBJECIVE feeling on recoil of a 12 ga is, rather what the EMPIRICAL data demonstrates.


jeffe

I need a bath after that load of BS...what a talent...to be able to shovel it like that! You should think about taking up politics...

Just to continue punching holes in your superiority complex...your rifling imparted recoil of -17 would indicate (because of the sign) that this vector is pushing the rifle back towards the shooter...

This is impossible. The thrust on a barrel from a bullet is towards the muzzle. The thrust from the powder pushes the bullet forward...and all the friction of the bullet on the rifling lands can do is try to 'drag' the barrel along with it...towards the muzzle. Your number is more accurately reflective of the torque imparted to the barrel by the angled rifling, not a linear thrust.

I can write equations that look impressive all day, but unless they accurately reflect the real world they are just numbers on a page...

cos(5) indeed...as another poster's sig. says: "talks cheap, get out and do it"

Of course, I wonder if someone with your mental condition is legally allowed to own, posess, or shoot a firearm anyway...

Sabot:

If you're still following this thread, I'm curious about your testing...

How long does it take for the projectile to leave the muzzle from the time of ignition to clearing the muzzle?

What kind of pressure ranges do those guns operate within?

I promise to not twist your numbers and bash your results!

CDH,

Since you cannot even follow the simple summation of forces calculation I can understand how you cannot handle trig.

The torque applied to the barrel is:

Bullet force times the SINE of the rifling angle time the bore radius.

So from my example above:

4472 * sine 5 deg * (.308/2) = 60 in-lbf

With regard to bullet recoil:

quote:

SO THE SHOULDER ONLY FEELS -4472 + 4455 = -17 POUNDS.

-4472 is the REARWARD thrust of the gas column on the LOCKED BREECH

+4455 is the FORWARD thrust of the bullet on the barrel.

Adding the two results in a bullet induced recoil value of a meager 17 pounds.

The muzzle blast generates a much more respectable 1118 lbs of recoil force (that would be a rearward thrust of 1118 pounds from the expansion of the high pressure gases into the atmosphere.)

Have a nice day, and have fun twisting the numbers so that your erroneous beliefs are met.

By the way, the time it takes the projectile in Sabot's experiments to leave the muzzle is ~ 4 milliseconds (0.004 seconds). Take that into consideration with his 1 millisecond sampling rate and you can see why I find his data acquisition questionable at best. Of course you would need to understand a bit about how data acquisition systems work. Probably don't though, maybe your CE PE can help you out, then again probably not.

ASS_CLOWN

quote:

Of course you would need to understand a bit about how data acquisition systems work.

About 50% of the work I do is DIRECTLY involved in industrial data acquisition and control...I am quite able to address sampling rate questions...and sabot is quite able to answer for himself.

Thats what being an Electrical Engineer for a engineering firm specializing in the petrochemical industry does...so now you know.

CDH,

quote:

About 50% of the work I do is DIRECTLY involved in industrial data acquisition and control...I am quite able to address sampling rate questions...and sabot is quite able to answer for himself.

Thats what being an Electrical Engineer for a engineering firm specializing in the petrochemical industry does...so now you know.

Well if that is all true you should immediately be able to understand the problem one would encounter with a sampling rate which is 1 millisecond measure a DYNAMIC (exponential growth and decay) event that is only 4 milliseconds long.

I figured you for a EE after I realized you weren't a CE.

Have a good weekend.

ASS_CLOWN

quote:

+4455 is the FORWARD thrust of the bullet on the barrel

If the bullet were transferring that much of its forward thrusting force to the barrel there would be no force left to accelerate it, therefore it would in fact have to be lodged in the barrel, per your calculations and logic.

Since it in fact (normally) slides down the barrel, it only transfers a (small) fraction of the force on its base to the barrel, leaving the force on the breech largely unopposed...except by pressure on the stock.

I wondered if you would find that flaw in the model I presented in the other thread...I figured if you ever did you would be well on your way to understanding the forces involved and we could continue this discussion in a polite, reasonable manner.

Hope you and JD have a nice weekend as well.

quote:

Originally posted by CDH:
Clark, if 10% of the stuff you have posted about you have actually done it true you of all people should be able to see through AC's drivel.

More importantly, if you are using his calculations (on casehead strength, for example) as predictors for your experiments, I would think you would be VERY interested in the validity of his calculations and math ability. Independant verification is CRITICAL to this...and failing.

I have never met ASS Clown at all. However I have met Clark and have been to his shop several times. I know enough about firearms to tell who knows what he is talking about and who does not.
Clark is one guy who I would not question his opinion, even if it differed from mine. I would take it that he was right, and I have been wrong all these years.

Clark also seems to have a lot of respect for ASS clowns opinion. My own experience with ASS CLown on this forum, is that he is one of the most appropriate named guys on here. He personally struck me as a dick head whose favorite pastime was arguing regardless of the point.

However if he has Clark's respect for his technical opinion, then I for one, will respect ASS Clowns knowledge without question. Regardless of his personality rift.

The rest of this post has really degenerated to the usual BS and testosterone contest, that was all too common on the older posts. Guess AR goes thru cycles and " they're back".

Cheers and good shooting
seafire

CDH,

quote:

If the bullet were transferring that much of its forward thrusting force to the barrel there would be no force left to accelerate it,

WRONG! The bullet is held in the barrel by friction. Since the frictional force is far smaller than the bullet's thrust force acting on the barrel, the bullet accelerates down the bore.

quote:

slides down the barrel, it only transfers a (small) fraction of the force on its base to the barrel

Do you know how to calculate a friction force? It is the normal force (that would be the force exerted perpendicular to the bearing surface of the bullet) times the coefficient of friction.

So do you understand how the dynamic coefficient is effected by surface velocity?

If you do understand these two basic fundamental concepts you would immediately understand how WRONG your quoted sentence is.

Now I have posted the FACTS and CORRECT math to support my argument. It is NOT my intention to write a textbook and provide a complete bibliography.

Believe whatever you want. Your erroneous beliefs mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO REALITY, however.

By the way, want to explain the issue(s) with Sabot data acquisition, since you are an expert in that field as well?

ASS_CLOWN

Here's a page I read you guys might find interesting.

http://www.bsharp.org/physics/stuff/recoil.html

Clark- this post is about the pistol you mention.Even with a little friction in barrel
from bullet dragging forward- And the weight
of the barrel wanting to stay forward as gun recoiled back, putting pressure on top strap,
it is still the main recoil of the bullet
against standing breech that gives the impetus to stretch the strap away from the barrel.If AC was right that muzzle blast gave 90% + recoil
the barrel would be pushed back to keep strap from stretching!!!!!...Ed.

AC -Your still just doing a snowjob.
Like your statement that muzzle blast is imparting recoil for .02 second instead of the actual right amount of .2 millisecond(.0002
seconds)........Where is the bullet from a
3006 at 2800 fps, in .02 sec from the end of barrel?Remember it is up to speed.About 20 yards away.Where has the powder gone at 4700 fps in your .02 seconds?
Well it is disipated and gone in the .02
milliseconds I used.

Then you say this crap---""The actual forces imparted to the barrel by the bullet are MUCH MUCH higher than the friction force.""

Tell us the mechanism that does this beyond what the friction from the rifling and bullet rubbing against the sides.Your doing a snowjob.