quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:
None of you have shown proof, only opinions.
I think this post was started just to creat arguments.

I don't see any arguments, just discussions. But I guess if someone does not agree with you, it is argumentative.

And no I did not make this post just to create arguments, that is just what you want to make of it. Like I said in my previous post. So I guess we have nothing further to discuss.
How is that creating arguments?

Once again we see things differently, and I accept that, why can't you?

I have deliberately stayed out of this one, but here is an observation based on experience.

Take two rifle cartridges in identical rifles (weight, stock design, etc). The .416 Remington Magnum and the .416 Rigby, both pushing a 400 grain bullet at 2,400 fps. Which one recoils the most? Keep in mind that the Remmy has considerably higher pressure than the big Rigby. The Rigby wins this contest because it takes more powder to achieve the same velocity (at a lower pressure). We are talking about a 20,000 psi difference or thereabout.......and 20 grains more powder or so.........

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
Grumulkin, now you've become condescending and that's not the intent of the post. Your scuba tank comparison is just plain silly. If I carried around 100 pounds of C4, it wouldn't have any recoil either. Set that tank down on the ground and take a sledge hammer and break the valve off or put a piece of det cord in the C$ and light it. Tell me what happens then. As for as "recoil" operating in all directions when a round is fired, thats patently incorrect. PRESSURES may be exerted in all directions, but recoil (the REACTION spoken by Newton's law) will only take place in the opposite direction of the ACTION (the bullet being moved down the barrel).

You're pretty much right except about the condescending part. In addition, you have taken from my post the exact message I was meaning to convey. The pressure in the scuba tank is potential energy just like gun powder is. You can have all the pressure in the tank that you like and unless there is a directional release of the pressure, there is no recoil. Similary, you could increase the pressure in the chamber of a firearm as much as you wanted and as fast as you wanted and there would be no recoil unless the bolt or receiver blew out or the bullet moved down the barrel.

Saying that recoil is influenced by pressure is correct if you will also accept that, if you eat Wheaties for breakfast and your car gets stuck that, when you push your car to get it unstuck, the force exerted was influenced by the Wheaties.

Comparing different guns and felt recoil is not very precise. Things like stock configuration, recoil pad, muzzle brake, clothing worn, body posture, position of the butt of the gun on the shoulder, etc., all aside from the weight of bullet and powder all affect felt recoil.

Recoil can also be thought of as acceleration. A tiny bit of acceleration over time can result in a lot of speed. More pressure would cause increased acceleration of the bullet and therefore increased acceleration in the opposite direction of the butt of the gun. If you were to calculate the time it took for a bullet to traverse a 24 inch barrel at 800 fps it would come out to be 2.5 milliseconds. If the velocity down the barrel was 2,400 fps, it would take 0.8 milliseconds for the bullet to traverse the barrel. Of course, the bullet would be accelerating from a velocity of zero so if the bullet exited the barrel at 800 fps, the average velocity would be a little lower.

In other words, with times measured in milliseconds, differences in velocities of a projectile moving down a sporting firearm that were only due to a bit more rapid acceleration of the bullet would be pretty much undetectable by the human shoulder. What the shoulder feels is the acceleration of mass down the barrel and the butt of the gun moving (or accelerating) in the opposite direction.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
I have deliberately stayed out of this one, but here is an observation based on experience.

Take two rifle cartridges in identical rifles (weight, stock design, etc). The .416 Remington Magnum and the .416 Rigby, both pushing a 400 grain bullet at 2,400 fps. Which one recoils the most? Keep in mind that the Remmy has considerably higher pressure than the big Rigby. The Rigby wins this contest because it takes more powder to achieve the same velocity (at a lower pressure). We are talking about a 20,000 psi difference or thereabout.......and 20 grains more powder or so.........

Case design is the difference, I have shot both, and the 416 Remington has more of a sharp recoil over the 416 Rigby, I know from experience.

Grumulkin, no one will believe you because they eat Wheaties! Or is it beans for the jet effect?
Another thing they don't understand is the powder weight. If you start with 50 gr's of powder it is added to the bullet weight to figure recoil. As it burns, the net weight does not change as the gas created plus any unburned powder will still weigh 50 gr's.

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
I have deliberately stayed out of this one, but here is an observation based on experience.

Take two rifle cartridges in identical rifles (weight, stock design, etc). The .416 Remington Magnum and the .416 Rigby, both pushing a 400 grain bullet at 2,400 fps. Which one recoils the most? Keep in mind that the Remmy has considerably higher pressure than the big Rigby. The Rigby wins this contest because it takes more powder to achieve the same velocity (at a lower pressure). We are talking about a 20,000 psi difference or thereabout.......and 20 grains more powder or so.........

Case design is the difference, I have shot both, and the 416 Remington has more of a sharp recoil over the 416 Rigby, I know from experience.

It's not case design. The Rigby is a much bigger case requiring a lot more powder. I have had both and still have the Remington and it certainly doesn't slap more than the Rigby did. That Rigby burns a hell-of-a-lot more powder.

How did we get back to apples and orange again. bfrshooter, you're wrong in your assessment weight simply because the powder when detonated becomes a force in motion and thereby HAS no weight. I know you can't weigh it as it shoots, but I do know that the elements are changed chemically from a solid to a gas. Then you guys, of all people, start talking QUANTITY of powder. You are reloaders and you know much depends on the TYPE powder being used much like a pound of black powder being compared to a pound of C4 - apples and oranges again. You talk case design -right back to the jet engine where pressure and velocity vary inversely. The gas coming out of a bottle necked cartridge is going to have a greater velocity than an open ended round because of the pressures built up in front of that "forcing cone" in the case. Once past that cone, the velocity increases exponentially. There are host of variables at play in every round fired and the ONLY thing you can ever agree on is that a .22 short doesn't recoil as much as a .22 long or .22 long rifle simply because using the SAME powder with the SAME ingnition system, the ONLY variable is the amount of the SAME POWDER. Who cares why the tide changes, all that matters is when it's time to go fishing. If someone much smarter than the collective intellect of ALL of us in this discussion were to write out the formula, none of us would understand it anyway. If the recoil bothers you, don't shoot the firearm. Simple enough isn't it?

I have a number of big-bore rifles and revolvers, ad I don't seem to have any trouble handling the recoil of any of them......

Powder charge is very much relevant in this discussion. Every recoil calculator I have used asks for rifle weight, bullet weight, velocity, and powder charge. Why is that?

Okay, I just plugged in two different cartridges/loads into a recoil calculator. One mimicing a Rigby, one a .416 Remington.

Rigby
400 grain bullet

102 grains powder

2400 fps velocity

9-lb rifle weight

65.89 ft/lbs recoil energy


Remington
400 grain bullet

81 grains powder

2400 fps velocity

9-lb rifle weight

58.05 ft/lbs of free recoil energy

Note that the only variable is the powder charge....... Food for thought?? Don't cast stones at me!!

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:

Dang, all I get is a beating the dead horse emoticom????

Whitworth

Please run the following through the recoil caculator.

Have ALL loads in the same weight rifle and at the same velocity with 400gr bullets.

The 416 Rigby with the slowest burning powder suitable, and the fastest burning powder suitable.

The 416 Rem Mag with the slowest burning powder and also with the fastest burning powder.

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
How did we get back to apples and orange again. bfrshooter, you're wrong in your assessment weight simply because the powder when detonated becomes a force in motion and thereby HAS no weight.

You, my friend, are in La La land. What you are saying is that the entire mass (weight would be gravity acting on mass) of the powder is converted to energy. A minuscule portion of the powder is converted to energy which has no mass while the rest is gas with some solids mixed in which do have mass. Even a thermonuclear reaction converts a relatively small portion of mass to energy.

bfrshooter, you ask for formulas and if it is not in a formula it has no value, but you don't by into energy and there is a formula for it.

Show me where you came up with this statement.
"If you start with 50 gr's of powder it is added to the bullet weight to figure recoil. As it burns, the net weight does not change as the gas created plus any unburned powder will still weigh 50 gr's."

I think if you are not always right, you resort to mass postings of why you are right. If anyone disagree with you, they are wrong.

You are quick to point out how we don't understand, maybe it is you that does not understand.

Whitworth don't tell me case design has nothing to do with it, it does.
And who said anything about handling recoil... We all know you are a big tough guy, not need to flex your muscles here.

Sorry not everyone subscribes to you two's theories all the time, and it is OK. You don't always have to be right.

You guys have fun with this...

Quote;
MCgunner is correct. The mass of the powder, even though burning and being converted into gas, does add to the forward moving mass, and every formula on recoil takes that into consideration. It is not too significant in many handguns; in a .45 ACP pistol, firing a bullet of 230 grains, the 5-7 grains of the powder charge is not too significant as it is 1/32 of the bullet mass. But in a .30-'06, firing a 150 grain bullet, the 50 grain powder charge is 1/3 the bullet mass, and must be added to the recoil formula.

Jet effect is automatically included as it is part of the movement of the gas and the mass of the gas plus powder is equal to the mass of the unfired powder alone, so the mass is the same whether the powder is powder, or gas, or a combination.

Note I use the word "mass", not weight. "Weight" applies only to objects in a gravitational field; mass applies to objects whereever they are. If a rifle is fired in space, outside the Earth's gravitational field, the bullet will still leave the barrel, and the rifle will still recoil.

In fact, a rifle will recoil even if there is no bullet at all, only a powder charge. The mass of the gasses alone will cause recoil. So it would seem that if we had enough powder to keep up the burning and generation of gas long enough we could keep recoil going and the rifle would keep moving.

If we had liquid "powder" and enough of it, its mass would keep pushing the rifle, and if we pointed the rifle down, it would actually move upward, recoil overcoming gravity. So if we built a big rifle, with big tanks of liquid propellant, and called it a rocket, we might be able to use it to shoot people into space. And we did. Men went to the moon and returned on recoil.

Yes, I should have said mass but posted late at night in a hurry.

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1: Whitworth don't tell me case design has nothing to do with it, it does.
And who said anything about handling recoil... We all know you are a big tough guy, not need to flex your muscles here.

Sorry not everyone subscribes to you two's theories all the time, and it is OK. You don't always have to be right.

You guys have fun with this...

Our two theories?? Are you off your meds this morning, Redhawk? I merely stated that it is my EXPERIENCE, not having shot someone else's rifles at the range but having owned both of those calibers that the Rigby, burning more powder -- a LOT more powder, kicks more..... Now, elaborate on the case design in the example, as having any effect on recoil. I'm waiting.

My comment about handling recoil, Redhawk, was in response to George's last statement in that post where he said, I quote: "If the recoil bothers you, don't shoot the firearm. Simple enough isn't it?" If you find it discomforting that I stay in shape, I am truly sorry about that......

NE 450 No 2 -- there is no provision in any of the recoil calculators I have used for input powder type, but they all ask for powder charge. I never said that this is definitive, but in the case of the Rigby and the Remington, the Rigby kicks harder!! I'm serious!

I didn't want to get dragged into the mud slinging which this has turned into. Now I am going to be accused of blindly siding with bfrshooter, even though that is not the case, but Redhawk, you immediately start throwing barbs about him not wanting to accept anyone else's opposing view. Back up and reread your posts and you will see what I am saying. Looks to me like this is a debate and it doesn't need to get ugly. PERIOD.

Damn, I'm really trying to play nice, but y'all make it very difficult.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1: Whitworth don't tell me case design has nothing to do with it, it does.
And who said anything about handling recoil... We all know you are a big tough guy, not need to flex your muscles here.

Sorry not everyone subscribes to you two's theories all the time, and it is OK. You don't always have to be right.

You guys have fun with this...

Our two theories?? Are you off your meds this morning, Redhawk? I merely stated that it is my EXPERIENCE, not having shot someone else's rifles at the range but having owned both of those calibers that the Rigby, burning more powder -- a LOT more powder, kicks more..... Now, elaborate on the case design in the example, as having any effect on recoil. I'm waiting.

My comment about handling recoil, Redhawk, was in response to George's last statement in that post where he said, I quote: "If the recoil bothers you, don't shoot the firearm. Simple enough isn't it?" If you find it discomforting that I stay in shape, I am truly sorry about that......

NE 450 No 2 -- there is no provision in any of the recoil calculators I have used for input powder type, but they all ask for powder charge. I never said that this is definitive, but in the case of the Rigby and the Remington, the Rigby kicks harder!! I'm serious!

I didn't want to get dragged into the mud slinging which this has turned into. Now I am going to be accused of blindly siding with bfrshooter, even though that is not the case, but Redhawk, you immediately start throwing barbs about him not wanting to accept anyone else's opposing view. Back up and reread your posts and you will see what I am saying. Looks to me like this is a debate and it doesn't need to get ugly. PERIOD.

Damn, I'm really trying to play nice, but y'all make it very difficult.

That is the funny thing about you, if someone disagrees with you, they are arguing, I thought this was a discussion not an argument.

No I am not concerned or find discomforting that I stay in shape, it was a joke, sorry if your med's don't allow for a joke. (Just repeating what you said to me about my med's, thought it would be OK since you used it.)

As for my experience, I also have owned both rounds, 416 Rigby and a 416 Remington Mag. The recoil of the 416 Remington was more of a sharp snappy recoil to me, as to the push recoil of the 416 Rigby, God I hope I described that right, but I am sure you will find fault in how I worded it.

Why are you finding it hard to play nice, no one is getting tight jawed but you.

We went from a simple question on pressure vs recoil, to outer space and scuba gear. Man this is better than the movies.

I don't see any mud slinging or cussing going on, so what's the problem???

Tit for Tat, Redhawk, Tit for Tat. Gotta hit back on every point. The day you accept the answers you seek without argument will be a good day on this forum.

I too was joking as is evidenced by the little smiley face after my commentary about staying in shape. The only one I see getting "tight jawed" around here is you, Redhawk.

The title of this thread is "I have a question. No argumant involved." Which indicaes to me that you are seeking opinions, yet you are not taking heed of these opinions and are arguing over them. Or should I interpret the title of this thread differently as you yourself are doing, despite the fact that you are the originator of said post? Do you want input, or not?

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
Tit for Tat, Redhawk, Tit for Tat. Gotta hit back on every point. The day you accept the answers you seek without argument will be a good day on this forum.

I too was joking as is evidenced by the little smiley face after my commentary about staying in shape. The only one I see getting "tight jawed" around here is you, Redhawk.

The title of this thread is "I have a question. No argumant involved." Which indicaes to me that you are seeking opinions, yet you are not taking heed of these opinions and are arguing over them. Or should I interpret the title of this thread differently as you yourself are doing, despite the fat that you are the originator of said post? Do you want input, or not?

I would love input as long as it is correct... And I don't see anything wrong with discussing or elaborating on a subject, it happens all the time in most threads, does it not?

What you want is a group of guys that all agree with what you say.

I see people going back and forth and not taking it as personal as you do.

You want to find fault in whatever I post, that is the bottom line as I see it. As for your post in another thread, about getting drug into the trenches, you know you don't have to go there, but it does not take much to get you there. You have no one to blame but yourself...lol

I will let you have the last word, I don't want to be accused of wanting the last word.

Wait, let me see if I get this right. You seek input, and then you say that you "love input as long as it is correct". If you already know the correct answer, than why do you seek input? Again, you are a living contradiction. You can't have it both ways.

You make definitive statements and are NEVER open to accepting information that you might not know.

BTW, you just made this personal and you aren't even cognizant of the fact.......

I won't get the last word here, nor do I seek it. Tit for tat, Redhawk1........

Grumulkin, VERY INTERESTING that you use nuclear eneragy. EXACTLY the point I was making. The atomic weight of U 234 and U 235is obviously a combined atomic weight of 469, HOWEVER, since they're reactant of one another, they eliminate the physical law of "ordinary chemical means" with the resultant explosion being measured in KILOTONS So the weight of the uranium is actually infinitesimal to the resultant forces created by their reaction.

Wasn't it you who brought scuba tanks into this recoil discussion?

Whitworth, I'm sorry but the wasn't directed specifically at you. This is a discussion that has stalwarts on both sides who'll NEVER be convinced regardless of the formulas, laws of physics OR personal opinions. We've collectively flogged this horse to death and we're still beating on him now.

Funny, I didn't see a thing about nuclear energy, maybe a reference to atomic weight that every element in the universe has. Since our powder now is nuclear I don't know what to say.

Then the answer that gas has no weight or mass as it were, WOW, were is that from? It seems to me that gas just has the molecules farther apart but didn't lose any.
This means all the smart guys here that buy propane by the gallon for their BBQ will get heavy tanks that weigh, lets say, 20#. Since when it is converted to gas by opening the valve and gas has no weight, the tank will NEVER go empty. Perpetual motion of molecules that forever replace themselves.
It also means as we fly to the edge of space, atmospheric pressure does not change because air has no weight, or mass as it were. Funny that all the gas in the atmosphere hasn't floated into space because gravity sure can't work on anything without weight.
Airplanes can't fly because zero weight/mass gas can't support them, it is all a dream. Birds are a dream too.
I have to wonder if all of these guys that know so much REALLY reload ammo---What a scary thought!
I have to agree with Whitworth, Since Redhawk knew the answer, why did he post? Why to start more trouble with his butt buddies of course!
I just know they will vote for Obama because he will also CHANGE the physical world and the atomic structure of everything to match what this little group believes.
Hey Grumulkin and Whitworth, just throw up your hands and laugh with me!

Whitworth
Thanks for trying.
The point I was lookin to make is the fact that seveal double rifle shooters that have loaded thier 450 and up doubloes have noticed that loads with RL 15 kick less than loads with IMR 4831. Same rifle same bullet weight same velocity.

Which would seem to be "scientificaly correct, baised on your recoil caculator.

I would think that the pressure to get the same velocity would be nearly the same in a single rifle.

So at the same pressure and velocity more powder equals more recoil.

Now for something different.

Take the 458 Win Mag and the 450 No2.

I have shot them side by side on several occasions.

The 458 seems to have more recoil add it is sharper/faster.

Here we have a case of 2 cartridges giving the same velocity with similar powder charges, but the Higher Pressure 458 having more recoil.

I have also noticed when shooting my 450 No2 side by side with a 470 [and I have done this with several 470's] they also seem to have more recoil, and they operate at a higher pressure than the 450 No2.

Other people have noticed the same thing.

So I feel, everything else the same, more powder, more recoil.

And everything else the same more pressure, more recoil.


And on another note:
Everything else the same, a heavier bullet gives more recoil.
When I shoot a 350gr bullet in my 450 No2, same powder charge as the 489gr bullets the 480gr bullets kick more.


Anything changed in "the system", has to make a difference.
So I would tend to think MORE powder, or pressure, or bullet weight, would add to the recoil.

NE 450 No2 -- good post!

My .458 win mag certainly kicks more than my buddy's .450 3 1/4, but it weighs 8-lbs, and his Westley Richards is considerably heavier and well, the recoil dynamic is quite different between a good English double and a bolt-gun.

bfr, what's the deal with you and Whitworth this time? Are you intent to turn this into another sideshow so your buddy Hitman can come on, close the thread and then claim that Redhawk and I are the problem? As I said, we just aren't going to agree. A one pound log burned in your fireplace ends up weighing 2 or 3 ounces. The escaping gases, being lighter than air, went up the flue. Now you can claim they weighed 14 ounces till the cows come home, but you can never actually WEIGH them. Gunpowder is the same thing whether YOU want to believe it or ridicule the principles involved. As I asked before, let's just stop this grousing around. I don't reload (this IS HANDGUN HUNTING, not handgun reloading isn't it?) I do understand the concept of reloading, just not interested in trying. I know most of you use a recipe book for various loads and bullet weights with the end item being optimum performance of the firearm. When that happens, even if you didn't use a recipe already written, you kept one of your own up to the point when the gun blows up. That way the next guy can know when to stop adding powder. "Tolerable recoil" is a purely personal perception. I'm not into whips and chains, but I enjoy the very powerful handguns more than I do the smaller ones. Just a PERSONAL OPINION however and those who are recoil sensitive (not saying a thing about Whitworth and what he enjoys and tolerates either)should stay with firearms they feel they can confortable CONTROL. To some people, the .357 is just too much gun and I'd never advise them to shoot the .44 mag. In the big scheme of things, it really doesn't make a damn. To each his own. And if ANY of us were experts in the dynamics of exactly how gunpowder works with resultant effects, we'd be making big money working for firms that employ people with that knowledge. Going out shooting cans of evaporated milk, like I enjoy, won't ever make me a physicist.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
Whitworth
Thanks for trying.
The point I was lookin to make is the fact that seveal double rifle shooters that have loaded thier 450 and up doubloes have noticed that loads with RL 15 kick less than loads with IMR 4831. Same rifle same bullet weight same velocity.

Which would seem to be "scientificaly correct, baised on your recoil caculator.

I would think that the pressure to get the same velocity would be nearly the same in a single rifle.

So at te4h same pressure and velocity more powder equals more recoil.

Now for something different.

Take the 458 EWin Mag and the 450 No2.

I have shot them side by side on several occasions.

The 458 seems to have more recoil add it is sharper/faster.

Here we have a case of 2 cartridges giving the same velocity with similar powder charges, but the Higher Pressure 458 having more recoil.

I have also noticed when shooting my 450 No2 side by side with a 470 [and I have done this with several 470's] they also seem to have more recoil, and they operate at a higher pressure than the 450 No2.

Other people have noticed the same thing.

So I feel, everything else the same, more powder, more recoil.

And everything else the same more pressure, more recoil.


And on another note:
Everything else the same, a heavier bullet gives more recoil.
When I shoot a 350gr bullet in my 450 No2, same powder charge as the 489gr bullets the 480gr bullets kick more.


Anything changed in "the system", has to make a difference.
So I would tend to think MORE powder, or pressure, or bullet weight, would add to the recoil.

You last statement is what I have been talking about all along and I agree 100%.

This is what I wrote in an above post on page one.
My take on it is like this. Yes the formula of recoil in a firearm does not include pressure in it. But without the pressure from the ignited powder you have nothing.
Something has to get newton's law into motion. The ignition of the powder from the primer, sets the wheels in motion, now you have the ignition, the resistance of the bullet in the case allows pressure to build up, and then it propels the bullet down the barrel.
Now you have recoil, change any variable and you change the recoil, such as gun weight, bullet weight or powder charge. I am not talking using different powders, sticking with the same powder.
In the reloading manuals, you will see pressure rises with more powder. As you increase powder in a case the pressure raises and in turn more recoil is produced.

I guess it is who says it, Whitworth thinks you made a good post but dismisses my post with similar information.

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:
Funny, I didn't see a thing about nuclear energy, maybe a reference to atomic weight that every element in the universe has. Since our powder now is nuclear I don't know what to say.

Then the answer that gas has no weight or mass as it were, WOW, were is that from? It seems to me that gas just has the molecules farther apart but didn't lose any.
This means all the smart guys here that buy propane by the gallon for their BBQ will get heavy tanks that weigh, lets say, 20#. Since when it is converted to gas by opening the valve and gas has no weight, the tank will NEVER go empty. Perpetual motion of molecules that forever replace themselves.
It also means as we fly to the edge of space, atmospheric pressure does not change because air has no weight, or mass as it were. Funny that all the gas in the atmosphere hasn't floated into space because gravity sure can't work on anything without weight.
Airplanes can't fly because zero weight/mass gas can't support them, it is all a dream. Birds are a dream too.
I have to wonder if all of these guys that know so much REALLY reload ammo---What a scary thought!
I have to agree with Whitworth, Since Redhawk knew the answer, why did he post? Why to start more trouble with his butt buddies of course!
I just know they will vote for Obama because he will also CHANGE the physical world and the atomic structure of everything to match what this little group believes.
Hey Grumulkin and Whitworth, just throw up your hands and laugh with me!

Yep dismiss it all as a big joke, you would not know anything about converting a liquid into a gas.
Next you will tell me 50 gallons of liquid oxygen will weigh 50 pounds if you could capture all the gas in a big balloon.
Hell I am throwing my hands up and laughing right along with you. This is funny as all get up.

And then you throw in Obama, Sounds like your hero, not mine.
I am a McCAIN/Palin supporter. God-Guns and Glory

Nor would your personality would ever give me cause to believe you would be very welcome anywhere you weren't a paying guest George; and I may be overly generous with the paying part.

Let's just give this thread a rest; I think this about the third or so time we've reached this point on the carousel.

Does everyone in Delaware like to argue as much as you and Redhawk? Do you grow up arguing; learning this behavior as a child or does it manifest itself later in life? I'm serious, most every thread either one of you two gets on turns to an argument. Personally, at this point, I'd put both of you on ignore, and I urge the rest of the posters on this forum to do this. However, as moderator, I've got to see what is going on in the forum.

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:I guess it is who says it, Whitworth thinks you made a good post but dismisses my post with similar information.

Was this before or after you informed me definitively that it was case design that was causing the big Rigby to kick more? Then, you wouldn't acknowledge that burning more powder (despite SIGNIFICANTLY lower pressure) results in more recoil, all else being equal (stock design, rifle weight, velocity, bullet weight etc.). Maybe if you were able to articulate your position more clearly and not get so defensive........

Hitman, that's really funny. I asked to peacably leave this post way back up inside. I don't really think folks in Delaware are much different from those in other places and they NEVER argue with themselves. It takes two to get into any "argument". But I do agree, I still think this issue will forever be a Hunters, shooters, and taxidermists are all cut from the same mold who think that being able to piss and moan is a constitutional right. If I went over to the rifle forum and said that the best rifle in North America was the .270 Winchester, want to bet that would stir these same emotions?

Whitworth, are you on our side of the Chesapeake or the other? Either way, you're pretty close to Delaware. Has that rubbed off on you as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:Yep dismiss it all as a big joke, you would not know anything about converting a liquid into a gas.

Next you will tell me 50 gallons of liquid oxygen will weigh 50 pounds if you could capture all the gas in a big balloon. Hell I am throwing my hands up and laughing right along with you. This is funny as all get up.

I know this will come as a shock to you but a pound of feathers weighs just as much as a pound of lead. By the same token, 50 gallons of oxygen has the same mass when converted to the gaseous state and also the same weight but just spread out over a bigger area.

Now I know this may be a real stretch, but understand there is such a thing as Archimedes principle. This means that if you take an object that weighs x amount on land and weigh the same object under water the apparent weight will be less than the amount on land by a quantity y equal to the weight of the water it displaces. But I digress, this has much less to do with the question about recoil and pressure than it does about why hot air balloons fly.

quote:

Originally posted by MS Hitman:
Nor would your personality would ever give me cause to believe you would be very welcome anywhere you weren't a paying guest George; and I may be overly generous with the paying part.

Let's just give this thread a rest; I think this about the third or so time we've reached this point on the carousel.

Does everyone in Delaware like to argue as much as you and Redhawk? Do you grow up arguing; learning this behavior as a child or does it manifest itself later in life? I'm serious, most every thread either one of you two gets on turns to an argument. Personally, at this point, I'd put both of you on ignore, and I urge the rest of the posters on this forum to do this. However, as moderator, I've got to see what is going on in the forum.

Tell me it isn't so, George and I must be the only one participating on the thread.

You find it very convenient to point the two of us out.
How many other people are involved in this thread? How many are stating there point of view as we are, but you only point us out.

Moderator, you are suppose to be fair and impartial, here is the definition of a forum moderator, no where does it say, pick a side as you have.

A forum moderator, often shortened to just mod, is a person granted special powers to enforce the rules of an Internet forum (message board) or electronic mailing list. Almost all moderators on all forums can move discussions to different sections of the forum, close discussions, edit the content of individual postings, answer questions (or help people with problems), and 'stick' discussions so they remain visible in their forum section even if no new postings are made to them. Different forums may give their moderators further powers, such as being able to block/ban people from the message board who are trolling or breaking the rules of the message board.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:I guess it is who says it, Whitworth thinks you made a good post but dismisses my post with similar information.

Was this before or after you informed me definitively that it was case design that was causing the big Rigby to kick more? Then, you wouldn't acknowledge that burning more powder (despite SIGNIFICANTLY lower pressure) results in more recoil, all else being equal (stock design, rifle weight, velocity, bullet weight etc.). Maybe if you were able to articulate your position more clearly and not get so defensive........

Not defensive at all. That is just your perception. I did articulate my position well in my opinion, you just chose to read it differently. Maybe I have a problem conveying my thoughts to my lack of writing skills.

Don't get it twisted, I am not upset in the least, I enjoy conversations with other, and I don't perceive discussion with arguing.

Why can't we all just get along....

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:
I will let you have the last word, I don't want to be accused of wanting the last word.

So much for that.......I rest my case.......

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:
I will let you have the last word, I don't want to be accused of wanting the last word.

So much for that.......I rest my case.......

I am not trying to get the last word, I did not know it was the end of discussion.

What is your problem Whitworth????????

I want the last word!

Pretty Amazing !!

In my experience, there are many factors that have an effect on how a handgun recoils. It is typically simplified to bullet weight and velocity, but you also have to factor in the weight of the powder, the speed at which the powder burns, and the pressure at the time the bullet leaves the barrel.

As a test try loading a 44 mag with a 300 gr bullet over appropriate loads of 2400, lil gun and H-110 for 1100 fps. I expect you'll find that the fealt recoil of those loads is noteably different.