Ac-You keep saying the erronious idea that recoil is all from muzzle blast.the thread
on BB about battleships, the phenomenon of
ship moving in recoil sideways is all from
muzzle blast??????????????Your goofy.
In example a few posts up I gave of shooting two bullets out of both ends of a barrel with powder between them.They both move on firing, and have equal recoil away from each other.
NOW WHEN DID THAT RECOIL OR MOVEMENT START-
WHEN THERE WAS MUZZLE BLAST LIKE YOU SAY???
No it started when explosion started the
process.So if one is anchored to gun.....
figure it out...

Ed,

Battleships DO NOT move sideways due to recoil of their main batteries! Sorry, my friend but that is mythology!! Just like your understanding of recoil. The ripples you see in the water (which is causing you to believe the ship is moving sideways) are in fact due to the muzzle blast alone.

What is you major hang-up with recoil anyway? You seem fixated on having to be ABLE to absorb super-human recoil energy levels. Why????? The bigger rifles DO kick harder than the little rifles. That is a fact. It is also a fact that the bullet momentum method of estimating recoil velocity and energy calculates a GROSSLY TOO LARGE value for both velocity and energy. You seem to be very much in need of being able to handle that grossly too large set of numbers. I ask again, WHY?????????

ASS_CLOWN

Bullshit-Talk to battleship guys they will tell
you, And look at the films showing the ships moving in recoil.As far as the recoil I take
I use a weighted tripod locked to barrel for all testing.And as I said the recoil energy does not affect the shooter in comparison
between small and big cartridges in a direct
relation to the amount of the gain in recoil energy.IE a 200 ft lb recoil energy load in
comparison with a 20 ft lb load affects shooter 5 times as much, not 10 times.The gun and hence the shooter have to move to do work, and have an effect.And in that movement energy is dissipated.

Ed,

From the very thread you referenced on naval rifles.




USS Iowa BB-61 firing a 15-gun broadside in 1984
Note the ship's wake. It should be clear from this photograph that firing a broadside does not push the ship sideways. See the Technical Board article on this subject for further information.
U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph DN-ST-85-05379

----------------------------------------------------
Additional commentary from the same thread.

Do Battleships move sideways when they fire?
By R. A. Landgraff and Greg Locock
Updated 02 August 2000


What looks like a side-ways wake is just the water being broiled up by the muzzle blasts. The ship doesn't move an inch or even heel from a broadside.

The guns have a recoil slide of up to 48 inches and the shock is distributed evenly through the turret foundation and the hull structure. The mass of a 57,000 ton ship is just too great for the recoil of the guns to move it. Well, theoretically, a fraction of a millimeter.

But because of the expansive range of the overpressure (muzzle blast), a lot of the rapidly displaced air presses against the bulkheads and decks. Those structures that are not armored actually flex inwards just a bit, thus displacing air quickly inside the ship and causing loose items to fly around. Sort of like having your house sealed up with all windows and vents closed and when you slam the front door quickly the displaced air pops open the kitchen cabinets.

R. A. Landgraff
----------------------------------------------------

Sorry Ed, battleships DO NOT move sideways from the recoil of their main batteries.

Your analysis of recoil scaling is WRONG too. Recoil force/momentum goes up linearly. Energy changes by the square (second power relationship).

Can we drop this now? The math and/or physics is clearly over your head. A copy of the "Machinery Handbook" does not make one an engineer/physicist.

ASS_CLOWN

I don't know who the wrote what you quoted, but I have seen pictures of the ships moving and
rocking when the guns fired..
And I know that
recoil momentum is linear, and energy is
a square of the inputs, that is why I said
recoil doesn't affect the shooter in a direct relationship to the recoil kinetic energy.
And along with my handbook I have two calculas books,and 1000 others, but what does that mean. IE try to
put things in a way that regular shooters can understand, not impress them with a snowjob of
math applied wrongly.And you still didn't address the question about two bullets in a barrel recoiling away from each other,and whether that recoil started with the muzzle blast--Or when powder ignited and bullets moved,IE recoiled.

Ed,

Could you do me a BIG favor. Please provide a SCIENTIFIC definition of "recoil".

quote:

address the question about two bullets in a barrel recoiling away from each other,and whether that recoil started with the muzzle blast--Or when powder ignited and bullets moved,IE recoiled.

Lets see. I think the bullets would start to move away from each other as the propellant powder burned and gas pressure built up. I also don't think that there would not be any movement of the barrel. Is that correct?

I have another question for you.

If you take a barrel, no action now just a barrel, and push a bullet through it (we'll use a ramrod, but it is doing the same thing that the gas does if the breech isn't locked). Let us assume it takes 1000 pounds exerted on the base of the bullet to push the bullet through the barrel. Let us also assume that the coefficient of friction between the barrel and the bullet is 0.3. How much force is required to keep the barrel from moving(1000 pounds, 200 pounds, 0 pounds), or does the barrel move at all?
Now what if we put a threaded plug on the breech, and run a screw through that plug that pushes the bullet down the barrel (now we are pushing the bullet out the barrel in the same manner as a locked breech rifle). What force is required to hold that barrel now?

Careful Ed, I think there is a trick or two in those questions.

Another question. When loading a muzzle loader, does the gun require support when starting the ball and ramming it down the barrel? Would a breech fired weapon require the same support, but applied in the opposite direction?

Yet another question. Why are barrels threaded into receivers with such large threads. Is there something trying the pull the barrel off the receiver or something?

ASS_CLOWN

quote:

Let us assume it takes 1000 pounds exerted on the base of the bullet to push the bullet through the barrel. Let us also assume that the coefficient of friction between the barrel and the bullet is 0.3. How much force is required to keep the barrel from moving(1000 pounds, 200 pounds, 0 pounds), or does the barrel move at all?
Now what if we put a threaded plug on the breech, and run a screw through that plug that pushes the bullet down the barrel (now we are pushing the bullet out the barrel in the same manner as a locked breech rifle). What force is required to hold that barrel now?

AC the same force applied to the bullet is being applied to the barrel(breech) in both cases. The only differance is the manner of application. The rod has pressure applied to the bullet base and your hand, the screw threads apply force via the threads to both the breech and the bullet base. The "pressure" is still equal over both ends of the barrel (total inner surface if gas pressure) The barrel also accually expands in diameter behind the bullet as it travels due to the same forces, everything is in motion, recoil is just a measure of "how much in a given direction". I still see the gas escaping the barrel as simply adding to existing recoil forces, maybe because they possibly increase in velocity when nolonger restrained at the muzzel and not being the major cause.

If it takes a 1000 lbs of force to push a bullet
through a barrel it takes a 1000 lbs of some kind of resistance to hold barrel.Whether the
bullet is pushed with a rod, where the barrel
would be lock to vise able to hold 1000 lbs push or Whether the bullet pushed with a screw
or propellent burning, the the breech threads has to hold a 1000lbs.The vice and the breech threads have to hold the 1000 lbs of thrust,
in each example.Nothing tricky there.The force
you had in example was the theoretical end result of the math using the coefficient of friction.

It don't matter what barrel you are pushing bullet through with an outside force, or the direction, the barrel has to be anchored.

Recievers are just a cap so to speak threaded on, acting the same as a plug screwed inside. acting the same as a solid breech on a muzzle loader barrel, acting the same as a slid breech on a cannon, etc. And what is trying to push
or more technical, "FORCE" them apart is the explosion between the
breech(however it is built in or on the barrel) and the bullet.
SAID PUSH OR FORCE STARTS THE BULLET FORWARD AND STARTS THE GUN REARWARD,AT THE INSTANT OF FIRING.As Joe says the breech is an extension
of the barrel structure and explosion is trying
to push it apart, said push(force) to the
rear opposite the force to the front on the bullet makes up part of the gun recoil.

In example I gave of a Lott with 500 and 1000
gr bullet loaded to same energy and muzzle pressure(takes less velocity with 1000 gr to get same energy),the 85% more recoil energy
with 1000gr, can't be from the same muzzle pressure. It is from the difference in bullet wt
affecting the recoil of the gun while in the barrel, from start of explosion until out of
barrel.And gun starts back a same time as bullet
starts forward.

With all of this talk about Battleship recoil, what do you think of their grouping? Would a muzzle brake help?

If they would use really wide electrical tape across the muzzle like we do, they could just shoot without worrying about the time delay of removing the plug.

"Long" Bob--They'd use one of your condoms.
Bob it is nice to have fun while getting our post counts up..Ed

Ass_Clown,

You wrote:

"The math and/or physics is clearly over your head."

If your premise is correct, why don't you publish it, or put it on this site for peer review?

Or, if you have actually undertaken anything more than a JD inspired wank, you could provide references that could be looked at by others.

That would be the best way to establish your hypothesis.

Wouldn't it?

Don't worry about the 'complexities'... I'd hazard a guess that some of us are competent to undertake an objective analysis, or know people who could...

So... are you for real, full of JD, or full of shit?

Longbob,

I suspect that the Iowa has a bedding problem...note the vertical stringing of the groups. Perhaps free-floating would help?

OK, sorry...it's early, it's Monday and that one got away from me. Far too early for that kind of PUNishment.

Mark

hubel & 218,

It is nice to lighten things up every now and then.

quote:

Originally posted by ASS_CLOWN:

Another question. When loading a muzzle loader, does the gun require support when starting the ball and ramming it down the barrel? Would a breech fired weapon require the same support, but applied in the opposite direction?

Yet another question. Why are barrels threaded into receivers with such large threads. Is there something trying the pull the barrel off the receiver or something?

ASS_CLOWN

while we are on the topic, if your "wild ass guesses" are anywhere near correct, you would wind up stating that a full charge blank load would have just as much recoil as a loaded round.

and that a squib load (one that doesn't make it out of the barrel) either would have ZERO recoil or negative.



Your rather limited experience is glaring through, boyo.



as I and others have told you before "it depends".. in a muzzleloader, (assuming the powder has been packed correctly) you got drop a ball down the barrel and pull the trigger...

no, wait, scotty going to say "then it won't be very accurate" or other words to contradict, but that would glaringly show his lack of experience.

in a muzzle loader, a "ball" is generally underbore and requires patching to SEAL.


only if one went through your 87 steps for a 3 step process would your point of view have any bearing

barrels have large threads?

have you EVER seen more than one barrel shank? aren't you a mechanic? in relation to diameter, the threads vary pretty well, and range from anything from 1-10 to 1-16 TPI (and more) or NO threads at all... on basically a 1" shank, a 1/10 has a fairly fine thread depth, and the 16 on a largish shank, is actually a fine thread... in fact, scotty, that same 3/8 bolt of "some shatterproof alloy" in a chevy block, could be a 1-16...

large threads would be 1-8 for a barrel shank sized item...

wow... could it be that a fairly fine thread, with a very tight fit (go read what a class 1-5 fit is boy) , might have a little something to do with union rather than "power transmission"


have you called your parole officer today?
jeffe

Hey 218 Bee, technically the barrel is free floated, only supported at the rear by the receiver, turret, whatever technical designation you give it...

I could be wrong AC, but the pic. that the technology boarg calls a 15 gun salvo has only got 9 guns. Is the rest of their stuff as accurate as that.

AC, big threads on the receiver to barrel junction are for rigidity as much as strength...the scope is on the receiver and the barrel controls the direction of the bullet travel....but you already know where I am going with this, since you are such a firearms expert. Some barrels are simply press fitted and pinned (Remington 710 and many SKS/AK clones, for example)...not the strongest joint for sure.

While I'm posting, I have another query for your expert analysis:

Since muzzle brakes are extremely efficient at turning most of the muzzle blast back towards the shooter, there would be more forward 'pull' than backward 'push' when firing...since we KNOW that only the 'jet effect' causes recoil.

Why do muzzle braked rifles not pull the shooter forward, towards the target?

Gixxer,

Quite right...the gun is supported by the turret, which is supported by the hull, which is supported by water, making it...drum roll, please...free-floated.

My apologies for stooping to puns so early on a Monday morning. That one even made MY head hurt...

Mark

Boom.. tish!!