feederic

Awesome!

Funny thing here is you sort of proved that a heavier G35 will magically absorb recoil with identical loads Also, FRE predicts that of the two lovely guns posted in the Bob Londrigan article, the lighter one will recoil more. While momentum alone would be identical between the two guns. So here is an example of how net momentum change can be zero, mass can change significantly and the two guns would behave very differently as predicted by FRE (although maybe not perceived on the same order of magnitude, but an increase in perceived recoil nonetheless). Also also, the recoil calculator disc

Actually, I do disagree. Energy of the fired shot is only one component of free recoil energy, alongside mass of the gun. The gun itself will have an equal and opposite reaction to that of the fired round in terms of momentum and not energy. You are interpreting Newton's 3rd incorrectly. Notice that mgu (mass of the gun) is in the denominator? This means that as the mass of the gun increases, the denominator increases and hence results in less free recoil energy that the gunsmith and shooter have to deal with. A heavier gun feels softer because IT IS softer, as in lower free recoil energy t

2 Internet cookies? Please address the "free" part of free recoil. I am quite glad I changed majors as well. Thanks for the support! I have a successful career doing what I love, and I still get to use calculus! The whole "fact ahead of opinion" thing is so two sided- it is your opinion that the only masses relevant in the equation are the bullet and the gun. The rest of us hold it. If you want to do some math instead of just doing what you feel is right, consider an additional mass in your theoretical system- one between 50-100 times greater than the gun itself. Obviously I wouldn't have th

Lets figure out that FRE equation you provided. If we assume a limited gun weighing 38 oz, 180gr bullet at 175pf, we get 4.237 ft/lb. Add 3oz onto the weight of the gun, and we get 3.927 ft/lb. That's a ~7.5% decrease in kinetic energy. That's only for a free recoiling firearm. ie, one that isn't being held. Yes, the lighter gun will have more kinetic energy after a given distance traveled than the heavy gun, in the same way the lighter can has more kinetic energy than the heavy can at the same height. But you're there to hold the gun, so the energy is transferred into you instead. We're s

I was wrapping up shooting with a friend and managed to hit a bullseye at his either 50 or 75? yard target with my last round of .45. Pure luck on the high hold I gave it as well as everything else. Maybe those cast missouri LSWC's are just that good?

How do you people feel about an optic sitting on a separate mount compared to a sight that is milled/attached directly into the slide? Are there disadvantages to dot tracking when the optic is milled/attached directly to the slide?

I've been pondering that same question for the past couple of months while I looked for a replacement for my Tasco tube-style red dot. Here is what I came up with from my research and some actual shooting: Pros: * All the top pros use it. * The 29mm objective lens on the CMore is bigger than all of the other red dots made by reliable manufacturers. OKO is 25mm, Aimpoint Micro is 20mm. The bigger lens makes it easier to find the dot on draws, easier to see the dot during recoil. I really like the reticles on the 33mm wide lens on the cheap BSA (and ton of other vendors) red dots, but I

So cost, modules, and durability? Is it also easier to adjust on the fly with the big knobs compared to the other more compact red dot sights?

I am pondering an open gun sometime in my future, and am wondering why C-More is top dog over other red dot sights? What is it exactly that makes it the red dot of choice?

Next time I go to my favorite range outside of vegas there are steel plates out to 600 yards. I'll give those a shot (or probably hundreds of shots)