1. Slow powder will cause a Luger to only partially open, and the pistol will not complete the retracting cycle. I was speaking of your scenario, where you pumped presure into a chamber behind a blocking loose bullet in the rifling, with no cartridge case to obturate the gas. (At least you neglected to mention chamber obturation and what kind of a barrel block you proposed.)
2. Name another? Borchardt. Sorry, it is an entirely different pistol.
3. My point is, these often abused definitions need to be reviewed and revised.
4. Recoil? Now, you are way, way over your head. This is a long story so fasten your seat belt.
General Julien Hatcher never attempted to define "recoil" in his books or NRA magazine articles. And, I know of no writer who did.
The usual (wrong) definition is "Newton's third law of motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Well, the Germans and many others launched rockets using reaction engines, didn't they?
About ten years ago, I was giving a class and in attendence was an engineer who had done work for NASA, etc. I made a statement about recoil in handguns which he disputed. After he thought it over for a number of months, he discovered the following:
Every physics book printed in the English language contained an error of omission in Newton's third law! That proved the following:
Acadamia NEVER checks out a source (and) Everyone connected with acadamia copies everyone else's writing.
As you know, I'm sure, Isaac Newton wrote "Principia" in Latin, since he and other scientists of his day thought the much larger Latin vocabulary was better suited to scientific writing than English.
In 1930, a Physics professor from Southern California wrote a translation of Principia...BUT, he must have gone on a coffee break when he was translating Newton's third law of motion.
HE OMITTED AN ENTIRE PHRASE. THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING UNEXPLAINABLE BY REFERING TO REACTION BETWEEN 1930 AND ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO.. Everybody in the scientific community in the English speaking countries quoted the incorrect translation.
The enginer's name was D.Y. Kadoshima. The book he wrote was titled "Handgun Recoil or the Fundamentals of Motion."
Incidentally, he apologized to me therein for doubting what I'd said. I was absolutely correct in the "what"; he supplied the "why..."
So, if you look at a college or high school physics book from 20 years ago and compare Newton's third law of motion with a textbook published last year, you will determine that Newton knew what he was talking about, and acadamioa was mumbling along with the tune for over 65 years.
Mr. Kadoshima also published a paper on "Diurnal Tides" that has been the subject of lots of mumbling along with a frayed tune since Hector was a pup.
Since acadamia and the textbook publishers refuse to admit such gross disservice to the scientific community, I don't know where you can obtain a copy of the book on recoil. You can find his paper on diurnal tides (that was originally part of the book on recoil) on the internet (from Australia) by writing D.Y. Kadoshima into the Google search engine.
The entire scientific community became upset with him, but without admitting gult, quietly undertook changing the error from 1930.
Despite the obviously flippant remarks of some gun writers concerning what recoil in a handgun consists of, it is an enormously complex subject, since individual perceptions and physiology enter the equasion.
And, if you think it is a simple thing, lean against a wall, resting your entire leaning weight on one palm. Well, there's obviously the action, but where is the "equal and opposite reaction?" read the missing phrase in translations of Newton's third law of motion and you'll be amazed and the question will be answered with scientific exactitude.
Now, that's enough bantering on this kind of thing. Back to the real world.
