RPRNY
Member
At more or less the same velocity, the difference in recoil is measurably immaterial so entirely up to your perception. At different velocities for the same projectile, the higher velocity will deliver more recoil.
What has more recoil?
- Thread starter kgpcr
- Start date
- Status
fxvr5
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2017
- Messages
- 3,270
It is measurable, has been measured, and can be significantly different. See post #10.
RPRNY
Member
Clearly, your opinion of "significant" differs from mine. What a great country.
Whether it is subjectively significant is, obviously, something that will vary from person to person.
The fact that the amount of recoil does vary by measurable, repeatable amounts does not.
If you go look at the Gun Digest link in #10 (the one that comes via google books), you will see the data. And I have loaded, to similar/same PF's, rounds with both AA #7 (which gives a lot of gas and therefore a lot of recoil) and with VV N320 (which is extremely efficient at generating velocity without a lot of gas). I promise you, there is a night and day difference. I have given comparison rounds (or comparison rounds with HS6, another somewhat-gassy powder) to people and had them shoot them back to back out of the same gun. I have yet to find a person who is not impressed by the very considerable difference in perceived recoil and blast.
If you reload, I would encourage you to do a little experimenting of your own... use two different powders that require very two different charge weights to get to the same velocity.... load up some rounds that hit the same velocity with the same bullet... then mix a magazine with some of each. Maybe you won't be able to tell the difference. But I bet you will.
The fact that the amount of recoil does vary by measurable, repeatable amounts does not.
If you go look at the Gun Digest link in #10 (the one that comes via google books), you will see the data. And I have loaded, to similar/same PF's, rounds with both AA #7 (which gives a lot of gas and therefore a lot of recoil) and with VV N320 (which is extremely efficient at generating velocity without a lot of gas). I promise you, there is a night and day difference. I have given comparison rounds (or comparison rounds with HS6, another somewhat-gassy powder) to people and had them shoot them back to back out of the same gun. I have yet to find a person who is not impressed by the very considerable difference in perceived recoil and blast.
If you reload, I would encourage you to do a little experimenting of your own... use two different powders that require very two different charge weights to get to the same velocity.... load up some rounds that hit the same velocity with the same bullet... then mix a magazine with some of each. Maybe you won't be able to tell the difference. But I bet you will.
You are "painting with a very broad stroke"
The OP original question (on topic) is 115 gr 9mm.
Granted as mentioned in another post, some rifle loads with LARGE difference in powder weight, will fit the equations.
In 9mm loads with a 1 or 2 grain difference in powder (all other things equal) the "recoil" difference is insignificant.
Nope. Just nope. Please go read the linked Gun Digest article... it was working with .38 super pistol cartridges.
My own experience doing the comparisons has mostly been with .40 loads in a 10mm case.
Yes, a couple of grains of powder makes a difference. Because we're talking about grains of powder that turn to gas, which then acts like a rocket. Remember, the gas leaves the barrel at a much higher velocity than the bullet itself.* Merely adding the weight of the powder to the conventional momentum calculation grossly understates the actual impact on recoil. Most of the math is oversimplified.
This is why actual experimental data and experience is good. You can see where the modeling falls short. This is one of those cases.
Again, please read the article.
*Note that this is why the gas from a powder charge that weighs a small fraction of the mass of the projectile can, nevertheless, very effectively drive the muzzle down in a compensated gun and can dramatically reduce rearward recoil in a braked gun.
My own experience doing the comparisons has mostly been with .40 loads in a 10mm case.
Yes, a couple of grains of powder makes a difference. Because we're talking about grains of powder that turn to gas, which then acts like a rocket. Remember, the gas leaves the barrel at a much higher velocity than the bullet itself.* Merely adding the weight of the powder to the conventional momentum calculation grossly understates the actual impact on recoil. Most of the math is oversimplified.
This is why actual experimental data and experience is good. You can see where the modeling falls short. This is one of those cases.
Again, please read the article.
*Note that this is why the gas from a powder charge that weighs a small fraction of the mass of the projectile can, nevertheless, very effectively drive the muzzle down in a compensated gun and can dramatically reduce rearward recoil in a braked gun.
RPRNY
Member
Yah...still no in 9mm with the same 115grs. You are arguing how many angels would fit on the head of a pin. No matter how many you may argue, the same projectile driven at the same velocity from the same pistol will deliver effectively the same recoil. Because physics.
fxvr5
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2017
- Messages
- 3,270
Actually, physics says yes. Read the articles. You can ignore the facts if you want, but it doesn't change the facts, it only means you're ignoring them.
By the way, the Gun Digest article used 115 grain bullets in the 38 Super. Now I suppose you'll say that the laws of physics apply to one caliber but not the other.
RPRNY
Member
The OP asked a question. There is an objectively right answer. You may not think the question was interesting or important, but that's beside the point.
All else being equal, the same bullet driven to the same velocity will have less recoil when propelled by a smaller charge of faster powder. Because of the gas. The end.
All else being equal, the same bullet driven to the same velocity will have less recoil when propelled by a smaller charge of faster powder. Because of the gas. The end.
Why is "the end" because you ended it??
The Shooting Times article by the infamous Brad Miller PhD (who no one knows anything about, other than he writes nice articles) has been discussed bantered about and beat before in several threads.
It's like statistics, you can make numbers sound so wonderful. Like the Table #1. Sounds impressive with percentages.
To quote:
"Let’s start with some numbers. Table 1 shows the calculated charge weight and recoil energy for a velocity of 1275 fps. Most gunpowders required different charge weights to achieve the same velocity, and higher charge weights produced more recoil. Accurate #7 required 74% more weight than N320 and produced 20% more recoil for the same velocity"
Wow, 74% weight and 20% more recoil. That's a lot!
(4.0 grains of powder difference) He picked powders with a wide gap
Pick some other powders an the whole darn scenario changes,
Do the basic math. 4.15 minus 3.47= .68 more ft/lbs of recoil. Which comes to around 10 oz of energy in a metal frame Para handgun.
So yes, the equation, physics etc are true, but do they mean anything?
So is that a "substantial significant" amount of recoil in that heavy of a gun??
Dudedog
Contributing Member
OK we are getting serious here, so in order to lighten things up
I thought everyone new .38 super exists in a universe all it's own, and of course a different universe has different rules.
Try to find .38 super cases mixed in with 9mm at the range, nope they have migrated to a different universe, or at least the ones my friend shot did.
(and I can spot 9mm MAK brass mixed in with .380 and 9mm so .38 super should be easy to spot. I hear .38 Super Comp cases go to an even more distant universe)
I thought everyone new .38 super exists in a universe all it's own, and of course a different universe has different rules.
Try to find .38 super cases mixed in with 9mm at the range, nope they have migrated to a different universe, or at least the ones my friend shot did.
(and I can spot 9mm MAK brass mixed in with .380 and 9mm so .38 super should be easy to spot. I hear .38 Super Comp cases go to an even more distant universe)
fxvr5
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2017
- Messages
- 3,270
So is that a "substantial significant" amount of recoil in that heavy of a gun??
A 20% difference in recoil is about the same difference in recoil between a 9mm Luger and 38 Super. It's also about the same difference in recoil between a 38 Super and 45 Automatic. So . . . yes, it's a significant amount of difference in that heavy of a gun. I can feel the difference in recoil between those calibers in my 1911s.
The OP was 9mm, not 38 super.
But there are again you are using a "percentage", 20% sounds so much more than 10 oz (or a little over 1/2 lb) of ft/lbs of energy
Also as mentioned, pick two different powders and the the amount of difference can be reduced.
So if I pick a fast and slow powder that is only 2 grains difference how significant will that be??
It is all: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
"9 of of 10 Mothers chose Jiff over other leading brands"
Last edited:
Demi-human
maybe likes firearms a little bit…
Math is math. Percentages are also math. Ounces are math as well. If percentages seem like a bigger number it is not the fault of numbers, but the perception of the numbers. If twenty percent of three and a half pounds seems larger than ten ounces, again, not the fault of math, but human perception.
Let is face it on our feet. Some are not affected by recoil the same as others. This does not change the mathematical equation to which has more recoil.
Racing fuel makes more combustion gases than pump fuel. They are both gasoline.
Some look at this as a scientific model, looking for the empirically less recoil loading. To imply the use of numbers to lie is a disservice to mathematics. If one can not perceive over a half pound of force while shooting that is completely fine.
There is also nothing wrong with a conversation of legitament ballistic properties. Some, like myself, have never considered this element before to even search for past threads upon it.
Besides the answer is seven. And they don't dance on the head, they dance on the point.
Let is face it on our feet. Some are not affected by recoil the same as others. This does not change the mathematical equation to which has more recoil.
Racing fuel makes more combustion gases than pump fuel. They are both gasoline.
Some look at this as a scientific model, looking for the empirically less recoil loading. To imply the use of numbers to lie is a disservice to mathematics. If one can not perceive over a half pound of force while shooting that is completely fine.
There is also nothing wrong with a conversation of legitament ballistic properties. Some, like myself, have never considered this element before to even search for past threads upon it.
Besides the answer is seven. And they don't dance on the head, they dance on the point.
RPRNY
Member
From 1598, yet another extremely relevant point bearing on this non-issue:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Ado_About_Nothing
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Ado_About_Nothing
Person A: "Which is faster, a Cessna 182 or a Piper Cub."
Person B: "The Cessna. This has been objectively measured many times, and is also consistent with aerodynamic modeling."
Person C: "No, they're both the same."
Person B: "No, they aren't. There are published sources for their cruise and top speeds, and they all show the Cessna faster. I have also flown both of them, and there's no question which one was faster."
Person C: "Wrong. They're both really slow compared to an F-15."
Person B: "You may not think a ~50 knot difference is cruising speed is important for your purposes. But there's one right answer to the question."
Person C: "If you crash either a Cessna or a Piper, they're both going fast enough to kill you!"
Person B: "Again, that's fine, but the Cessna is objectively faster."
Person C: "This is all much ado about nothing! Why do you keep going on and on about this??!"
Person B: "The Cessna. This has been objectively measured many times, and is also consistent with aerodynamic modeling."
Person C: "No, they're both the same."
Person B: "No, they aren't. There are published sources for their cruise and top speeds, and they all show the Cessna faster. I have also flown both of them, and there's no question which one was faster."
Person C: "Wrong. They're both really slow compared to an F-15."
Person B: "You may not think a ~50 knot difference is cruising speed is important for your purposes. But there's one right answer to the question."
Person C: "If you crash either a Cessna or a Piper, they're both going fast enough to kill you!"
Person B: "Again, that's fine, but the Cessna is objectively faster."
Person C: "This is all much ado about nothing! Why do you keep going on and on about this??!"
RPRNY
Member
After all the Jesuitical palavering, you finally got to the correct conclusion in your last line above. I suppose different people have different styles of learning, but glad you finally got there.
Same projectile + same velocity + same gun = materially same recoil.
Same projectile + same velocity + same gun = materially same recoil.
Demi-human
maybe likes firearms a little bit…
I think you mean ostensibly, materially would mean empirically. I would take sixty eight hundredths of a pound of hundred dollar bills. Heck I'd take fifties.
If a human doesn't care, or can feel the difference, why would they care to comment?
Fourty fives are 'better' anyway.
If a human doesn't care, or can feel the difference, why would they care to comment?
Fourty fives are 'better' anyway.
- Status
