Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Low Recoil Loading Data needed for S&W 40


mastergunner

Recommended Posts

Hatcher states:

 

"Bevis and Donovan, in The Modern Rifle, 1917, state that experiments with a Seibert Velocimeter lead to the conclusion that a value of 4700 may be used for the exit velocity of the gases.  Balleisen, in Principles of Firearms, 1945, gives the same figure."

 

Guy

 

 

 

Guy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Bullets said:

I would use the w231 over the cfe if you are trying to soften up the recoil. Heavier bullets is the way to go for softer shooting too. I would also go with a coated bullet if I were you. It will require less powder to make power factor. That will help soften the recoil too.

 

Think I will use the W231 with a 180 from xtreme bullets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point of interest . . .  Hatcher discusses both the 4700 fps and the 1.25/1.5/1.75X factors (page 289 of Hatcher's Notebook) to calculate the effect of gas velocity contributing to recoil, and he uses both types (4700 and 1.75X) to estimate the recoil of a rifle round (page 290).  

 

Later in the text he uses the 1.75X factor for his rifle recoil calculations (value used on page 293), and the 1.5 factor for gas speed to calculate the recoil of a handgun (page 297).

 

from Page 289:

A Second Method

The British Text Book Of Small Arms, 1919, states that "experiments of an extensive nature with ordinary guns" indicate that the average effective velocity of the powder gases may he taken as between one and two times the muzzle velocity of the bullet, with an average value of one and a half. The same work, edition of 1909. gives a value of 2 for the Short Lee-Enfield using cartridges loaded with cordite.

 

In applying this approximation, a considerable degree of judgment will have to he used, as a figure approaching the higher limit must be used for very high pressure loads in short barrels, while low pressure loads such as used in shotguns and revolvers require a much lower figure.

 

For rifles in the Krag class, a figure of 1.5 should be used, and this will work well with revolvers also, as well ss with shotguns having short barrels and using full loads. For shotguns having barrels of maximum length, a figure of 1.25 gives closer results. For guns such

as the M 1903 Springfield or the Garand, a value of 1.75 should be used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2017 at 11:53 AM, dvc4you said:

4.9gr of N320 behind a 180 gr coated bullets produces very little recoil...

 

That's my load with an OAL of 1.180 for my 5" Edge. Chrono is 170PF at St. George, UT and 167 at Rio Salado (altitude difference?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 57K said:

6 of one, half dozen of another. Again, do the calculation for a 40 oz. pistol. Higher gas pressure increases recoil while lower charges reduce recoil. But. the faster powders some of you guys use operate at higher pressure. 1st and foremost, you must find accuracy. How much difference is there really when you're talking about minor power pistol loads with pistols 2# and heavier? For major PF, other things come into play like compensators, but still, chargeweights are small enough that if you calculate the actual recoil generated . . . I think most of this is derived from what guys, who really don't understand about the pressure characteristics of the powders they use, take too much from consensus opinions that were pretty much formed the same way!

 

BTW, your load manual should give the formula for calculating recoil.

 

Peak chamber pressure does not predict the gas pressure at the muzzle. http://www.shootingtimes.com/ballistics/compensators-pressure-gas/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to use the values listed for Titegroup and WSF, here’s the difference.

 

Using a 3 pound gun and equal velocities of 865 fps for 230 grain bullet, and 5.2 grains of Titegroup and 6.7 grains of WSF.

 

                        Charge             Velocity          Recoil  Acceleration    Force   PF

Titegroup         5.2                   865                  5.3       1795740          1834    199     

 

WSF                6.7                   865                  5.6       1795740          1834    199

 

 

Since the bullet is accelerated to the same muzzle velocity, the acceleration value, and subsequent force must be equal.  Recoil is in ft-lbs using the gun velocity and mass.

 

Force is in pounds, acceleration is fps2.  Power factor is a form of momentum with inconsistent units (grains-feet/second instead of pounds-second) resulting from wv instead of mv.

 

Another aspect of what we feel ins the moment.  This is the force times the distance between the bore and our hand.  In the case of the Ransom rest, it is the distance between the bore and the pivot point of the rest, likely greater than the distance between the bore and the pivot point of our hand.

 

If, for the sake of argument, we assume the distance between the bore and the pivot point of our hand is one inch, the moment arm would be 153 ft-lbs with the force determined earlier.  This seems a lot, but it is applied very briefly (0.0005 seconds).

 

I tend to expect the moment is more a factor in the rotation of the Ransom rest than recoil (though obviously they are not totally unrelated).  For equal power factors (resulting in equal force) the rotation should be equal, though there will be variations just as we see in load tests with velocity variations.  It seems likely approximations could be calculated, though I find angular calculations more tedious than linear ones and have not pursued it further at this time.

 

While all this is interesting, it still comes down to how the shooter perceives the recoil – the combination if the actual recoil plus the muzzle flip caused from the moment arm.

 

In my own shooting, if I’m doing my part, the load doesn’t seem to matter much other than accuracy.  I’ve done some of my best shooting with heavier loads.  As such, I select components that are available and satisfactorily economical, develop an accurate load – and go shoot.  No particular worry about finding the mathematically lowest recoil load.  Others may find they are more prone to the recoil feel and should experiment to see what works for them.

 

Guy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GUYS hold up. I started this thread to help me figure out how to reduce recoil in my 40 but also to remain in MAJOR. I have seen a lot of math recently and though it is great, it is not really helping me. The bad part about it is that the math is not jiving with some of the online calculators that I have seen.

 

To be straight here it seems like I need to push a 180 gr .40 to around 930+ to remain in Major. To me that is going to be a nice amount of recoil.

 

I would assume fast loading powder may ease it a little but not a lot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, mastergunner said:

 

To be straight here it seems like I need to push a 180 gr .40 to around 930+ to remain in Major. To me that is going to be a nice amount of recoil.

 

I would assume fast loading powder may ease it a little but not a lot?

 

The recoil will be whatever it is. A fast powder (which requires a low charge weight) is the best way to reduce the recoil as much as possible while still achieving the required velocity. The only way you'll know what the recoil is, is to load some ammo and shoot it.

 

Load some ammo, shoot it, and let us know how it goes.

 

If it turns out to be too much recoil, your only option is to shoot minor. 

 

Recoil calculators that give different values for recoil are likely using different constants for the gas velocity; 4000 fps, 4700 fps, 1.25X, 1.5X, 1.75X. Not even the experts agree on which formula to use. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Guy Neill said:

 

I tend to expect the moment is more a factor in the rotation of the Ransom rest than recoil (though obviously they are not totally unrelated).  For equal power factors (resulting in equal force) the rotation should be equal, though there will be variations just as we see in load tests with velocity variations. 

Guy

 

 

Ransom Rest movement can distinguish between different gunpowders even they they push the same bullet to the same velocity (same power factor). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Guy Neill said:

Never having used one, I'll defer to those with experience with a Ransom rest.

 

Do slower burning powders tend to rotate it more?  Or is there a guideline?

 

Thanks.

 

Guy

 

It is said that burn rate can be unclear where to rank specific powders when used in specific cartridges. 

 

The Ransom Rest does a good job of distinguishing between powders that require different weights for the same velocity. Powders that require more weight produce more movement. This is consistent with how the weight of the gunpowder contributes to recoil.  More weight for the same velocity means more recoil, as your calculations have shown. The Ransom Rest's movement mirrors this.  http://www.shootingtimes.com/ballistics/measure-relative-handgun-recoil/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2017 at 3:38 PM, 57K said:

 

You can skew science to get a desired result, and this is kind of representative of that. The more important aspect and topic here being recoil differences using different powders to achieve the same velocity/PF, there are no calculations done with the test pistols whose selection made for an ideal match. So the author simply measures recoil from the arc of recoil with the pistols in a ransom rest and without a compensator that shows a difference of only 10mms! WRONG. This while touting differences with 2 different powders where one is nearly double the powder charge. Then with compensators, the difference is no different! WRONG. Considering that this is about the arc of travel at the muzzle, we should understand that the bullet of identical velocity loaded with a slower powder will have a higher dwell time in the bore. Again the disparity of powder types is at the extreme. I don't think any experienced handloader here would recommend something at the slow extreme as an alternative to something like TG. Something Like WSF . Okay, the higher gas pressure from #7 kept muzzle rise identical to the TG load. WRONG. Much ado about nothing and if you look you'll see that in the graph #7 was measured with a higher velocity. IRRELEVANT. 

 

He mentions F = m * a which is fairly well accounted for in the simple calculation of Power Factor. That can be taken a step farther with a calculation for recoil where all factors are inputted into the calculation to reveal emperical data in the amount of force actually imparted on the shooter using a value of measurement that's easy to comprehend. Plus, testing with more realistic variables cuts things down even farther and I'll use the example of TG and WSF for a 230 gr. FMJ in .45 ACP. The Lyman Max charge for TG is 5.3 grs. for 878 FPS. The Max Charge of WSF is 6.7 grs. for 864 FPS. Pretty similar velocity from their 5" test barrel. TG runs a tad faster, so go ahead and drop a tenth from the TG charge. We're then looking at a difference of 1.5 grs. in a secnario that's far more likely to occur than the use of AA#7. In fact, Lyman doesn't use it. IRRELEVANT. At 850 FPS, PF is 195.5, so how much difference in recoil (properly defined) could there be? WSF burns slower where the most significant difference would be time in bore, or whatever Quikload calls it. Mathematically, the value is going to be higher for the slower burning propellant. BUT! By how much? Is it even significant?

 

I don’t want readers to get the wrong impression of the results of that article based on your incorrect analysis.

 

The results demonstrate that more gas contributes to more muzzle rise without a compensator (4-6 mm) and less muzzle rise with a compensator (4-5 mm) when pushing the same bullet to the same velocity with two different gunpowders that require different charge weights in both the 45 ACP and 38 Super.  Side conclusion - a compensator works on the low pressure 45 ACP just like it does on the high pressure 38 Super. 

 

Barrel time has been used to account for differences in the point of impact of the bullet, generally comparing different bullet weights or different velocities. I’m not familiar with studies on barrel time and how far a gun moves during recoil with the same bullet weight at the same velocity. If you know of data on that, let me know. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GrumpyOne, I will only comment on the obvious.

 

23 hours ago, 57K said:

Actually, I think you do.

 

Wow. I simply provided the correct information because of your error in reading the plots.  I fail to see how providing the correct information is a conspiracy of deception. Your conclusion is the exact opposite of reality. 

 

Readers beware. If you correct 57K’s mistakes, instead of apologizing for making an error, he goes on the attack by fabricating lies. 

 

57K, lying destroys your credibility. You realize that, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enough. If anyone has anything constructive to add to this thread, please pm a moderator and ask it to be re-opened.

 

Posting Guidelines

Attitude
Please be polite. Or if not polite, at least respectful.
No bickering. Regardless of the subject matter.
Antagonistic, offensive, or quarrelsome tones are not acceptable.
No trolling. No alternate accounts.

 

Certain posters in this thread violated several of the above guidelines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...