quote:

---

Originally posted by Chasseur:
Russ,

Is claude Brochet related to Paul Brochet and the familly currently making the Darnes in France?

Thanks

---

Chasseur,

I can answer this one as I had some indirect correspondence with Claude Bouchet. No he is not related to Paul Bruchet who bought the Darne company's manufacturing assets.

He runs an agricultural machinery manufacturing company and started experimenting with double rifles of his own design some years ago. Raymond Caranta wrote about his experiments in Gun Digest very briefly and I contacted him thanks to Ken Ramage and Raymond Caranta. At the time he was not planning on making guns for anyone but himself and I was really surprised to see these for sale when I read the posts here.

Mr Bouchet has his own theories on design and strength that I don't understand personally and he is an extremely private individual in his personal life, not even owning a car by choice while he lives in a remote part of France on a huge property dating back some centuries.

I was grateful to Mr Caranta for introducing me to Bouchet, Christian Ducros and Alain Vaussenat, three brilliant creative eccentrics who reminded me of the eccentric geniuses who dominated the British gun trade in it's golden years.

Good hunting!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ Gould:

quote:

---

Russ, Old Boy, was that sixth grade physics that you graduated tops in, and which country, or planet?

When you throw in the gravitational constant to convert weight to mass, you do indeed end up with ft.-lbs. as a real unit of Kinetic energy.

Go study up, for maybe that was not covered in whatever different universe you studied previously. This is the Universe where the planet Earth exists, you know, third rock from the Sun. That might help get you to the proper gravitational constant.

Quit digging, throw down that shovel, as Jeffe has said.

---

RIP,

I had a good laugh at your post. Wow!

Your knowledge of Newtonian physics is consistent with your (old) avatar (the infant). And for your information, Newtonian physics works on every planet. It only breaks down when objects are moving very fast, approaching the speed of light, in which case Einstein's theory of relativity comes to bear.

I said I was done but since nobody else seems to be willing or able to educate you, I will do it.

Actually, when you multiply MASS by g (acceleration due to gravity), you get a force (F=ma remember?), correctly called weight (not to be confused with the everyday use of the term as a substitute for mass), not kinetic energy (which is only a property of MOVING objects). This force is measured in Newtons in the metric system. The same force can be expressed as kilograms-force (kgf), which is the force exerted by gravitational attraction on one kg of mass. 1 kgf is approx equal to 9.8N, since gravitational acceleration is approx 9.8 m/s2.

In the imperial system, the force exerted by gravity is called pounds-force (lbf) and one lbf (force exerted by gravity on one lb) is 32 poundals. A poundal is that force required to accelerate a mass of 1 lb at a rate of one foot per second per second (or one foot per second squared). Since g is 32 ft/s2, 1 lbf=32 poundals.

So you are wrong on every count. Applying the gravitational constant converts mass to weight, not the other way round, and you don't end up with ft-lbs, you end up with lbf (pounds force) or poundals whichever you prefer to use. You also don't end up Kinetic Energy as you stated, you end up with a force. The only correct statement you made is that KE can be measured as ft.lb although you hosed it up by using a hyphen. In metric, that would be Joules (J or KJ).

Now for one last lesson, especially for you RIP. The SLUG. A SLUG is that mass that accelerates at 1 ft/s2 under the force of gravity. It's called a SLUG because it's really slow to get moving. One SLUG has a mass of about 32lb. There is an equivalent in the metric system called a metric slug, rarely used, equal to 9.8 kg. A metric slug weighs less than in Imperial slug.

That's it, I'm done with the physics tutorial.

---

Troll alert, Russ is showing his ignorance again.

Russ, if you are going to put a bullet weight into a kinetic energy formula, you must use the gravitational constant to convert to mass. You use the gravitational constant to give a weight if you start with mass, it goes either way.

I don't want to reveal all the details of multiplication and division, as I want you to go back to the text book you found, and sweat over a review of how mass and weight are related by g.

Look back at my first quote of you, preserved for all to see, regarding your fundamentally flawed statement about the units of kinetic energy. I was the junior high school science bee champ, whooped all comers in the eighth grade, and that is all it takes to point out what a troll you have been lately.

Now go find the black hole or star gate you crawled out of, or apologise for insulting the forum's intelligence here.

You are obviously from a parallel universe where our laws of nature do not apply, arrived by a worm hole to do a little trolling, eh?

"That's it I'm done with the physics tutorial"

No, I doubt it.When everything else has failed the last bastion is the most desperatley defended.

And physics is usually suitably confusing for the guy using it as a last resort, to think he is doing pretty darn well using it

Take the option the other members have given with normal questions and return to reality mate.


Karl.

Wouldn't just be easier to say that making this double was a great waste of time now the man has put a huge price tag on the thing to make it look like it was the next best thing in doubles since smokeless powder..The way the thing shots I wouldn't want to stake my life on the thing in the heat on the momment when your being charged I would hate to have to resort to using the rife as a bat to beat off the charging animal... we all know that people bring these fancey rifles on hunts to show off ..this thing has the chance of getting someone killed the way it shoots..

mehulkamdar,

Thanks for the informative reply!

I had not heard of Claude Brochet before and I got confused with the similar sounding names.

Given your knowledge of his work what is your opinion on the rifles?

Chasseur,

I really do not know much about guns - I am sure you would have followed the discussions by experts here. I just contacted Claude Bouchet because I read about him and his experiments.

I registered on AR because I wanted to learn about guns and I have enjoyed reading the posts of experts here as well as at other forums.

Good hunting!

mehulkamdar,

You are too modest! I've found your posts on both forums very informative! No scarcasm here, I am serious.

Thanks again for the information on the makers in question.

Mickey1,

quote:

---

Where is Scott S when we need him. Razzer

Lovu Zdar

Mickey

---

I am laughing my fat arse off at the MASSIVE AMOUNT OF IGNORANCE ranted on about on this thread.

If Russ doesn't like the unit "ftlb" I suggest using BTU.

Slugs = mass (english system)
Kilograms = mass (SI system)
Pound = force (english system)
Newtons = force (SI system)

Weight = mass * (g / gc)

where:
g = acceleration of gravity at the location the object is being weighed

gc = gravitational constant
On earth
gc ~ 32.2 ft/sec^2 or 9.8 m/sec^2

Recoil isn't momentum either! Recoil is FORCE.

Is that enough Mickey1? I really have better things to do.

ASS_CLOWN

omg...
i am agreeing with AC


jeffe

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
omg...
i am agreeing with AC


jeffe

---

Yep,
AC seems to have better book comprehension and better communication skills than Russ. Weak praise, I know.

Russ's tirades are like watching him try to punch his way out of a mental paper bag and failing. We should cut some eye holes in that bag and just let Russ wear it over his head. Russ the Unknown Genius ...

Wonder if Russ will be back with another tirade after he has studied up a bit more? Eventually he might get it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500grains:
Back to the topic at hand, Russ has Mr. Claude Bouchet made traditional double rifles as well? Do you have any pics of them? I am curious whether this unique design is the current pinnacle of his design efforts, having started from more humble beginnings, or do these rifles represent Mr. Bouchet's first appearance on the custom rifle roadmap?

---

I have three additional rifles by Bouchet, all with monobloc barrels, that I will be offering for sale. Watch our websites. One is a 275Rigby, weighs 4kg (that is about 9lbs), one a 300 Wby Mag (weighs 5.5kg) and the final one is a 378 Wby weighing 7.5kg). I wouldn't call any of them traditional. I'll put some pictures on our websites, but I won't waste time posting them here as the audience (or at least the vocal audience) seems, how shall I say, rather provincial?

quote:

---

one a 300 Wby Mag (weighs 5.5kg) and the final one is a 378 Wby weighing 7.5kg). I wouldn't call any of them traditional.

---

And the guns that have been the topic of this longwinded ( ) discussion have been in 460 Wby, 500 A Square, and 577 Tyrannosaur.

Russ,

Why build doubles in these "modern/highspeed" caliburs instead of traditonal (and understandably favored) caliburs? Is Bouchet a "speed freak"? Are all his rifles usually in such caliburs? Just curious.

The pictures of Bouchets "monster" doubles are interesting to look at, but I have to say that they are a bit like many kinds of modern art seen in museums; facinating for various reasons, but often butt-ugly, overpriced, and not something you'd want to bring home...

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Russ,

here's a little link that converts all these pesky units for you... yes sirrah, UNITS

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/ConvForc.htm

---

Hey Einstein,

If we accept for the moment that we want to use the energy of the recoiling rifle as the appropriate measure of recoil and the unit we want to use is imperial, here's what your link has to say about conversion of energy units

foot poundal to joule (J) 4.214011 E-02
foot pound-force (ft·lbf) to joule (J) 1.355818

They don't list ft/lb as a measure of energy, because IT DOESN'T EXIST. It's ft.lbf (often written ft.lb but the former is more correct).

quote:

---

after all, EVERY one but russ calls it ftlb... just like a torque wrench!!!

---

Torque is another unit altogether, has nothing to do with recoil or energy. Measured in Nm (Newton metres) or pounds-force feet (lbf.ft) which laymen call "foot pounds". Torque is a measure of twisting force.

quote:

---

Ft# is how man FEET it can move a given POUND (no time units), but, since friction comes to play, it's generally understood how many POUNDS it can move a foot.

---

Sorry Jeff, lbf.ft is the energy expended when a force of 1 lbf applied for a distance of one foot. For example, if one were to LIFT one lb one foot against the force of gravity. No friction here. The amount of energy required to move one lb a distance of 1 foot depends on how much friction is encountered. It could vary from almost none (hockey puck on ice) to a huge amount (like in an earthquake).

I respond to you because you are almost there Jeffe, with just a little work we'll make an engineer out of you. Your buddies however are a lost cause. Besides, they are not deserving.

thats why they would be found in a museam there so ugly they when extinct.......those have to be the uglyest things i have ever saw i pitty the poor bastard dumb enough to purchase those rifles not only is he/she have more money than brains but have way to much time on there hands.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ErikD:

quote:

---

one a 300 Wby Mag (weighs 5.5kg) and the final one is a 378 Wby weighing 7.5kg). I wouldn't call any of them traditional.

---

And the guns that have been the topic of this longwinded ( ) discussion have been in 460 Wby, 500 A Square, and 577 Tyrannosaur.

Russ,

Why build doubles in these "modern/highspeed" caliburs instead of traditonal (and understandably favored) caliburs? Is Bouchet a "speed freak"? Are all his rifles usually in such caliburs? Just curious.

The pictures of Bouchets "monster" doubles are interesting to look at, but I have to say that they are a bit like many kinds of modern art seen in museums; facinating for various reasons, but often butt-ugly, overpriced, and not something you'd want to bring home...

---

I just posted that we have 3 additional guns, one in 275 Rigby, one in 300 Wby Mag, one in 378 Wby. They are more normal in dimension and weight.

He is not a "speed freak", he has just figured out how to make a break-open double rifle strong enough to handle cartridges formerly considered too hot for this type of gun. Nothing interesting or newsworthy about normal doubles in normal calibers.

Russ,

You keep working on Jeffe, he needs it! While you are at it, explain to him in more precise terms what recoil really is. He is hung up on that momentum/energy thing! Really, NO ONE ever felt no momentum, that is a fact!

Also, if you could do me one favor, tell me how long the unit "poundal" has been in use? I have never heard of it. I am very familiar with "slugs", "pound-force", and "pound-mass".

ASS_CLOWN

quote:

---

Originally posted by ASS_CLOWN:
Russ,

You keep working on Jeffe, he needs it! While you are at it, explain to him in more precise terms what recoil really is. He is hung up on that momentum/energy thing! Really, NO ONE ever felt no momentum, that is a fact!

Also, if you could do me one favor, tell me how long the unit "poundal" has been in use? I have never heard of it. I am very familiar with "slugs", "pound-force", and "pound-mass".

ASS_CLOWN

---

Here's the formal defition of poundal. It's been around for a very long time, in fact it's no longer widely used (just like some of the cartridges on this forum). But it's the conceptual equivalent of the newton, that force which accelarates 1kg at a rate of 1 m/s2.

"The unit of force in the British absolute system of units, a coherent, absolute system of units once used by British scientists, obsolete since the adoption of the International System of Units (SI). Abbreviation, pdl. One poundal is the force that accelerates a mass of 1 pound at a rate of one foot per second per second. One poundal is approximately 0.1382550 newton.

The poundal should not be confused with the pound force, a unit in the British gravitational system of units"

Momentum is indeed tangible. Getting hit with a telephone pole moving at 3 ft/sec (has little kinetic energy but quite a lot of momentum) feels a lot different than getting hit by a blunt arrow moving at 300 ft/sec, has quite a bit of kinetic energy but not much momentum.

Kinetic energy is a metric that puts a lot of weight on velocity and not as much on the mass of the moving body, whereas momentum weights both equally. E= m vsquared/2. Double the velocity, quadruple the energy. Whereas momentum M =mv, double the velocity means double the momentum.

Felt recoil is a physiological thing that varies individual to individual and even from shot to shot depending on the shooter's position, and also depends on stock design as well as gun weight plus the composition of the buttpad and your clothing etc. There is no one metric that accurately portrays felt recoil. We have discussed momentum, energy, and recoil velocity as alternative metrics. Truth is, none of them are perfect metrics and all of them have pluses and minuses. The big advantage of momentum is that it is specific to a given cartridge/load, and does not depend on the gun. Kinetic energy depends on the load AND the gun, and diminishes as the gun's weight is increased. For example, a gun twice the weight firing the same ctg will have the same momentum as the lighter gun (principle of conservation of momentum...the momentum of both guns is equal to the momentum of the ejecta), but half the velocity (since twice the mass) and also half the KE (since four times the v squared but half the mass). The heavier gun's recoil will feel like a longer push whereas the lighter gun will generate a sharp rap.

Someone said recoil should be measured as a force but that's impractical as the force exerted on the gun by your shoulder and vice versa is not a fixed amount, and not fixed from shooter to shooter. At best, one could measure a force-time curve for a given gun/ctg/shooter combination, but you can't reduce a graph to one number. I suppose you could quote peak force, but again, that would vary, even from shot to shot, depending on how firmly the shooter holds the gun etc.

If you did measure force, it would be in Newtons, poundals, kgf, or lbf. Nobody measures recoil in those units.

This might help end this bruhaha ....

this is taken from Robert Rinker's book "Understanding Firearm Ballistics" any mistakes are mine.

"The foot pound is the unit of measure for the kinetic energy of recoil. "

Formulas .....

kinetic energy = 1/2 mass x (velocity)^2

now it gets interesting ..... (my words)

the main equation for recoil is ...

MG * VG = C + MB * BV
where ...
MG = mass of the gun
VG = velocity of the gun
C = velocity of the powder charge as it leaves the muzzle
MB = mass of the bullet
BV = velocity of the bullet

free recoil is the term used for the energy developed and used in the recoil of the gun itself. Free recoil velocity is only the gun and as if it was hanging by a string and permitted to swing freely.
VG = 32.17 *I/W
VG = free velocity in f/s
I = recoil of firearm in f/s
W = weight of gun in pounds
32.17 = acceleration of gravity in f/s

I is found by using this equation ...

I = bw * bv + cw * c
bw = bullet weight in grains
bv = bullet velocity in f/s
cw = powder charge weight in grains
c = powder charge velocity constant

The actual energy of free recoil in foot pounds is found from

RE = W * VG^2/64.348

(this uses VG and W from above and 64.328 is the acceleration of gravity times 2 to three places)

and the author uses this formula to calculate "kick"

EG = W * VG^2/64.348 = RE

EG is the energy of free recoil in ft lbs

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in ballistics. It is very readable and an excellant reference book. Also, I did not use the SI system to maintain consistancy throughout the post. I think the SI/SAE differences might have contributed to the confusion.

Also, NitroX, those are some great looking pieces.

teflon

teflon,
Good review in a good spirited and helpful way.
The only confusion has been with Russ refusing to admit any of his mistakes, and quibbling over his coverups in Bill Clinton fashion. At least he has studied his books enough to educate AC on the definition of "poundal," an arcane unit evoked as mere puffery and distraction. I am impressed, not.

I tell you Russ seems to be from another planet, like a Conehead who has misinterpreted the culture, thinking a T.Rex SxS double that shoots hat-sized groups, is too heavy to hunt with, is butt-ugly, and costs 6 figures should be the cutting edge of gun tech. Weird!!!

I am disappointed that I have not been included in his last round of responses, unworthy that I am. I only got involved for yucks because of the low character of Russ's responses to his critics, critics who were kinder than deserved.

The doubles from hell need to go back into heated obscurity. Melt them down and build something useful or pretty.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ASS_CLOWN:
Russ,

Thanks for the explanation of "poundal" it is spot on to that contained within my Webster's Dictionary.

A pound force is also the force required to accelerate 1 pound mass at 1 ft/sec^2.

Therefore, a "poundal" is nothing more than a "pound force".

Seems to me to be an outdated term long replaced by the American's as "pound-force".

RIP, this "poundal" seems nothing more than outdated english terminology. A red herring nothing more.

I guarantee you will not FEEL momentum. What you feel is force. Anything with both mass and motion has momentum and kinetic energy. You feel neither of them though, what you feel is force. Force and momentum are related through Newtonian physics, force being the time rate change of momentum. A concept somewhat more advanced than high school physics, I am afraid.
Energy is simply the ability to do work, nothing more!

Your explanation is spot on for High School simplified (read erroneously applied) physics. Entry level college physics texts are also filled with this erroneous application of Newtonian physics. It seems to endure as it is an example most people can understand relatively easily. The actual definition of "recoil" even exposed this fact. Recoil is defined as a SUPER elastic collision. "Super elastic collision", means that MOMENTUM IS CREATED! Since momentum is conserved in any collision, meaning momentum is neither destroyed or created, recoil is NOT a momentum problem.

The momentum of the bullet does not make the gun recoil. Where is the collision between the bullet and rifle (the bullet is LEAVING the rifle not impacting into it)? Since there is no collision how is momentum transfered? If momentum isn't transferred how is momentum conserved? Finally, how is momentum being created since this is in fact recoil, a super elastic collision (wait where is that collision between bullet and rifle again??)?

What you feel is force, NOT momentum. This is due to the fact that in REAL world applications all collisions are inelastic to lesser or greater degrees. The momentum conservation is then described accurately by force transferance and balancing (Newton's and Kirchoff's laws)

Of course this is old ground and hardly worth the arguing, and I will undoubtedly delete it all again in the morning.

ASS_CLOWN

---

AC,
I thought that one pound of weight was the force generated by one pound of mass under standard gravitational acceleration of 32.174 ft/sec^.

It seems to me that one pound of force upward is that which is required to keep a one pound mass from falling downward at 32ft/sec^2 in the standard gravitational field.

A pound force will accelerate a pound mass at 32 ft/sec^2. Will it not?

My reading of the dictionary.

RIP,

A poundal is ~ 1/32 of a "pound-force". You caught me having a bit of fun, I am MOST impressed. Please forgive my "trolling" there.
The poundal is to the pound-force what the pound-mass is to the slug. Furthermore, a "poundal" is for all practical purposes an archiac, useless unit. As you so accurately stated in a previous post.

No comments on the rest of my previous post? Now that is the most impressive thing of all!

I shall leave this thread now, for you all to ponder.

ASS_CLOWN

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
"That's it I'm done with the physics tutorial"

By Karl.-

No, I doubt it.When everything else has failed the last bastion is the most desperatley defended.
Karl.

---

Thanks, ladies and gentlemen- I'll be here all night


RIP, with Axel engaging Russ I think the trickiest area of physics is now trying to work out just how fast Isaac Newton and co are revolving in their graves.

Going off poundals, my guess is maybe at the rate of 3 hebrew cubits per billionth of Sumerian astrological cycle.

Now, Axel.

Is it breeding season for you guys or something?

I squashed one of your kin on another forum a while back, same challenge as you usually are, but now I'm worried I released a package of pheromones or something?

Could this be possible...mathematically speaking?


Karl.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
[Is it breeding season for you guys or something?

I squashed one of your kin on another forum a while back, same challenge as you usually are, but now I'm worried I released a package of pheromones or something?
Karl.

---

LMFAO!!!

dang it karl, that was funny!!!


jeffe

Uh oh, I don't have enough time for this. Adios AC.

RIP,

I was hoping you would come out to play . . . too bad!

By the way, a poundal is equal to a pound-force at one special location.

When the local acceleration of gravity is 1 ft/sec^2 (way up there in altitude) then the poundal is in fact the equal of the pound-force.

So even my original trolling was correct under "special" circumstances.

Of course you know as well as I, that I MUST place certain erroneous statements into my posts to shatter ANY credibility my statements may have. It is afterall, a moral imperative that this lack of credibility exists for all things concerning the ASS_CLOWN.

By the way, I hope you meant your previous statement about dropping this! If you did, I say BULLY FOR YOU!

ASS_CLOWN

quote:

Originally posted by ForrestB:

quote:

Originally posted by Russ Gould:

I don't expect a response. I think part of the problem here is that the gentleman is FRENCH, and there are one or two members of this forum who dislike the FRENCH, possibly because they declined to get into the monstrously expensive mess that we now find ourselves in in Iraq.

Did Johnnie Cochran help you draft this response?

By the way George shouldn't this be in the Doubles forum?

Jeez, this is the best go-around I have seen here to date...congrats to all concerned!!

Russ,

this is getting to be an unfortunate habit of yours, using the forums as a sales vehicle for your companies. There is a section called "Classifieds" that would be a more proper and fitting place to hawk your wares.

That said, I am in complete disagreement with your responses. Ugly is a subjective term, but I think these rifles define it in a DR classification/definition.
Secondly, the generally accepted grouping distance for DG DR's is 50 yards...what are these targets you have shot at? I am load testing a friend's 505 Gibbs, and these targets resemble mine at the same distance (from the bench) without any filework on the express sights; using just the thin line as a visual reference.
Third, I would greatly appreciate you sharing with us how you regulate two barrels bored from one piece of steel?
Do you heat and pound them gently with a hammer, or is there some secret ritual involved?
This something I would expect to see on a FOX reality series...not here.

regards,

Rich

I would guess this thread is at least 2, maybe 3 years old.

Why was it brought back up? How did it get found?

quote:

Originally posted by Mickey1:
I would guess this thread is at least 2, maybe 3 years old.

Why was it brought back up? How did it get found?

I started a similar thread in the DR forum, when Charles_Helm pointed out this thread on the same rifles.

"Fact is three moa is about the best one can get with a moa-capable bolt rifle using open (express) sights. (There was a time, not too long ago, when 3moa was deemed acceptable huntin accuracy with a SCOPED bolt rifle). You just can hold any better than that. Most big bores are two moa rifles at best. So four moa is about par for a BOLT rifle with express sights. Add a second barrel that is PERFECTLY regulated and you still have four moa. So five MOA with a heavy double is a very well regulated double. The second bore is within one moa of the first. "

I shot a three-shot bullets touching group with my new 45-70 Guide Gun, open sights at 50 yards. Not express sights, but if I can do that, a 15 year old with a $475 gun, why can't a champion shooter guy do that with a $150,000 gun?! Check out the groups guys on here get with their big bores, and you say 2 MOA is as good as big-bores get.

What the heck, I'm arguing with a 3 year old topic..."Read the dates at the top Tyler..."