peterthefish

I just loaded a bunch of rounds w Trail Boss - no problems at all. Does your measure have a baffle? I'd get rid of the pump (may be doing more harm than good) and take the measure apart, clean w One Shot or something similar, and reassemble. Gravity and powder above the baffle is more than enough to get powder into the metering cavity unless you have a static issue.

Similar Burn Rates <> Similar Charges (and Power Pistol is quite a bit slower than N320), and 3.2 might get you a squib. I use 4.3 PP under plated 147s and 5.6 under plated 115s. Those are for falling steel so I don't load to PF but should be about minor territory.

D&L Shooting Supplies in RI has a good supply of pistol powder at fair prices (I.e. CFE $20.99/lb). Stopped there earlier today and they had; IMR PB 8 # Jugs Trail Boss: 5# Jugs IMR 4895 8# Jugs Win 748 & 780 - 8# Jugs CFE Pistol - 1# Cans & 8# Jugs Titegroup - 1# Cans IMR 7625 - 1# Cans Bullseye - 1# Cans Power Pistol - 1# Cans Red Dot - 1# Cans Blue Dot - 1# Cans You can stop in or call 401 738 1889 to order - they ship hazmat and also have primers at about $30/K for CCI SPP & LPP. I told them to expect some calls - they said they had plenty in stock. I bet we can clean them out before they close at 8 pm EST. I did my part picking up some CFE to play with.

Well if l took your comment the wrong way goes to show I've got a bit of a thin skin too I guess. Until next time...

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 transferred through the gun to the shooter. This can't be disputed, nor can a direct correlation between the free recoil energy and perceived recoil be denied. You've already admitted that power factor and weight affects what is perceived, and you will only perceive what the gun is doing as your fire it. The shooter provides nothing more than a reactionary force. Newton's 3rd law: For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2. Now tell me, where does it say that the energy of the first object must equal the energy of the second object? Remember, a linear change in momentum results in an exponential increase in energy where velocity is concerned. There is no way for a linear operation such as momentum to change as fast as an exponential operation like kinetic energy when changing velocity. As peterthefish stated, the resultant FRE is only the beginning. How that energy is dissipated by the shooter is a combination of skills by the gunsmith builder, the shooter, the load, and all of the lovely skills we come to benos land to learn. Be careful. The natives here are afraid of fire...

Enjoy my diminishing moments here? What does that even mean? I'd say it sounds like some veiled threat you're gonna tell mommy on me, but since you've already called me out as an ITG I must be mistaken. Next time you go whining about how someone "trained in Googlesearch" got the "Ultimate Smackdown" (tough guy alert!!!) you might want to have some grasp on the concepts being discussed. But you must be one of those guys who's allowed to make snide comments while being above receiving any. +2 for you.

Ok, two idiots at a time. Feel better? If Mike wants to go handing out internet cookie she might need a thicker skin when he gets a little back. Now go untwist your panties and brush the sand out Sally.

Why, because he could make more personal attacks on me there than here?If you can't address someone's points call them an idiot. Boosts your credibility, you know? I'm going to post some FRE calcs when when I get home and then bow out. Anyone who is interested can look at the numbers and decide for themselves. I like to think that my personal attacks are forum independent. While you're at it perhaps you could could post a graph of FRE vs Caliber for common loads assuming a constant gun weight. I wonder if they would follow generally perceived levels of recoil (I.e. 44 > 357 > 45 > 9mm > .22). Probably not though. It's just a number that has no practical application.

I'm assuming he means over clocked (screwed in too far) which results in a canted front sight. Things like chamber reaming I wonder more about. Most folks shooting a 929 are probably reloading and that can contribute to poor fit.

Force (which in the case of a recoiling firearm is Kinetic Energy) = 1/2mv^2. If you reduce velocity by 10% and increase mass by 10%, you reduce the Force generated by the firearm. You can disagree with it all you want, but as the saying goes, e=mc^2 isn't just a good idea, it's the law. No. Assuming ammo with the same PF is shot, the momentum of the recoiling firearm is the same, regardless of weight. The event is slower and thus less energetic, because the equation squares the velocity component, which means increases or decreases in velocity exponentially increase or decrease Force / Energy. This is like saying "Please justify the use of acceleration to measure the rate at which your vehicle's speed increases." It's the correct measure to apply to the system. There are three ways to model a firearm being shot. 1) The shooter and the gun are one (your position) 2) The gun floats until fired, the shooter then catches it (just silly) 3) The gun is relatively (compared to say, a Ransom rest bolted to a table) loosely coupled to the shooter. When the gun accelerates in the shooters hand when fired, the shooter must exert a corresponding force to keep the gun from going flying. So essentially we have an impact. Now, the impact is not perfectly elastic (gun bounces off you) so Kinetic Energy is not conserved. Lets model this as an inelastic collision. All Kinetic Energy of the firearm is lost, while momentum of the system is preserved. And, as we've previously established, a lighter firearm firing 165 PF ammo has greated KE than a heavier firearm firing 165 PF ammo. Of course, there's the whole pesky "energy can neither be created nor destroyed" thing, so where does the Kinetic Energy go? It compresses the flesh in your palms. It heats your hands through friction. It is absorbed by your muscles, tendons, etc... In other words, you feel it, as recoil. Go nuts, do it. Let me give you a hint - the Free Recoil of the full gun will be almost 40% lower. For the third time, FRE is the beginning, not the end of the discussion. The relation of the weight to the center of mass is also important. I prefer to think of this as a charity service, ending ignorance one shooter at a time. Like Make-a-Wish, but for idiots instead of kids with cancer.

I love XKCD (thought of sending this in as a 'What If' topic but I'm not sure if a rocket scientist's word will have any more of an effect on his opinion than mine.

1. You cannot add the mass of the shooter to the equation unless the firearm and the shooter are coupled. They are not. Like most facts, this is not subject to your opinion. 2. In fact most guns do have less felt recoil with a fully loaded mag, but since you do your physics 'on the clock' you probably don't notice. Over and above that, much of felt recoil is torque from a force applied at the bore axis which is higher than the grip. Adding weight in line with the bore axis will have a greater impact. 3. You are correct about one thing. A semi-automatic gun is a complex system and many things impact the transmission of momentum. Hence why I noted "all other things being equal" a heavier gun recoils less. 4. So you agree with the result the free recoil equation gives (I agree that heavier guns and lower PF rounds shoot "softer") but don't think the equation applies? You agree that a "heavier gun will feel softer at a given power factor because the velocity of the gun is reduced" but don't think that the accompanying reduction in kinetic energy of the recoiling firearm is relevant? I noted in an earlier post why (for example the percentage) recoil reduction given by the FRE is not the beginning and end of recoil reduction. But it is the beginning. Any other places where your personal opinion overpowers some basic math and physical laws? And you call that trying to bring "proper physics" to the thread? Stick to what you know. Clearly this ain't it. /I've noticed the more gas I put in my car the further it goes. Someone who doesn't drive as much as me told me it's because more gas means more energy means more distance, but adding more gas makes the car heavier so in my opinion he's wrong. That's pretty much where you stand in this whole thing.

Free recoil is relevant because that's the force the shooter has to absorb. All other things being equal, less is better (or more conducive to shooting on the clock). The idea that someone holding a gun means that free recoil no longer exists or is applicable is silly. Nor does the firearm have to be free floating and caught for KE to come into effect. Unless the firearm is fused to the shooter the KE is transmitted to the shooter through impact. As I noted, a firm grip mitigates some of this. Perhaps instead of a 10% reduction in recoil you'll only get 5%. Do you load your ammo 5% over a safe PF for S&Gs? It's not a matter of your opinion or how awesome anyone is - it's a fact. Heavier gun = less recoil transmitted to shooter. Whether or not you perceive a heavy gun or light gun to swing or track better, more weight forward to cause a gun to dive rather than stay flat, or think that new CFE Load is gonna help you make GM, a heavier gun transmits less recoil. /Glad you dropped out - PE creds usually require you to put fact ahead of opinion, and do the math instead of just doing what you feel is right. //A law school dropout. OK, I didn't drop out, but I thought really hard about applying.

You have been provided with the tools. You tell me.

Momentum <> Energy. Groundbreaking stuff.Almost like a 55 grain 5.56 at 3000 FPS with the same 165 PF as a 200 GR .45 ACP moving at 825 FPS has more energy... I bet it recoils more too! We might be on to something here... Also known as, something slow and heavy may have the same momentum but less energy than something fast and light. /Quick, someone check google and make sure the rifle round actually has more energy?! I've used up my tubes for tonight and I don't think anyone here shoots rifle. //Paging someone who knows more about physics than how to spell it...

I guess you didn't read my post. Unless the shooter and gun are involved in a perfectly elastic collision kinetic energy is not conserved.Also, you can take what you just said and reverse it. Using a certain type of ammo, a light gun going fast creates a larger amount of energy than a heavy gun going slower. From a physics point of view both the gun and bullet are projectiles - what holds true for one holds true for the other.

This. If you are going to bring up the first thing that pops up in Google you might want to take another second or two and study "free recoil". I don't think that formula means what you think it means, at least not if you hold your gun while firing it like most practical pistol shooters do. Mr. Cheely clearly paid attention in class. Actually, not that. Free recoil is a measure of kinetic energy translated to the shooter. While it's all well and good to say "I'm Matt Cheely, Newton's 3rd law, BAM!" that analysis fails basic rigor, and I'm surprised any engineer (even a non-mechanical engineer) doesn't immediately see that. Let's dig in a bit, starting with the concept of conservation of momentum. Assume that the firearm is a closed system. Once the gun has been fired, you have two particles with momentum conserved. We'll assume that the forces are purely oppositve vectors (i.e. gun is not torquing but recoils straight back). One particle is the bullet (for simplicity sake m1 = 1 and v1 = 100) and the other is the handgun (again for simplicity, m2 = 100, v2 = 1). Momentum is conserved; m1v1 = m2v2. Now let's add 10% to the weight of the handgun. Holding that the increase in weight does not change the velocity of the bullet (it does not - that is dictated by the energy in the powder charge) the equation is now m1v1 = m2v2 or 1 * 100 = 110 * x. Solving for x, the velocity of the firearm (v2) is now .91. Ah, you say! See, the shooter still absorbs net momentum of 1! It just changes the recoil impulse. But let's move a bit further in the analysis. Is the collision (in a physics sense) between the shooter and the firearm elastic, inelastic, or somewhere in between? I would imagine most elite shooters (vs. simple internet commandos like myself) would like to imagine that the collision is perfectly inelastic - they are the firearm, and the firearm doesn't dare recoil unless given permission. In this case, the recoil impulse, or momentum, is all that matters. If we were to step into reality, the collision or interaction between the shooter is partially elastic, and so we must also take into account the kinetic energy of the recoiling firearm. In the first case (with the unweighted firearm), the recoiling firearm has a KE = 1/2m1v1^2 = 50. In the second case (with a weighted firearm) it has a KE = 1/2m2v2^2 = 45.5. While a firm grip and good technique may minimize the difference here (bringing the collision closer to the inelastic side of things) it does not objectively eliminate it, nor make it only a matter of 'feel'. Why it is taken as gospel that the objectively softest recoiling loads are those with a heavy bullet / relatively low speed (at a given PF vs. a light bullet / high speed, compensators aside) while the same concept, when applied to the firearm (which is no less a projectile than the bullet in the system of a fired gun) is subject to debate, is beyond me. /Internet commando out.

Seriously!? I don't have a whole lot of edumacation but I know I can't send a paint can full of sand near as far into the air with a M-80 as I can when it's empty, just sayin. I should go get the $$,$$$ back that I spent all those years to get my bachelors degree then shouldn't I? I'd write you out the equations to prove it but I'd rather drink my beer. Apparently you should go get your money back. Go look up the equation for free recoil. There's a reason the weight of the firearm is part of that equation.

Z

This seems unlikely. They already have experience with N Frames and N Frame titanium cylinders. What could be the QC issue... Then again, I've only seen one hit gunbroker ever yet, so...

Sandbagging post count.

Yeah I saw that and wasn't sure what it means! So really 9mm has a "thicker" case than 38super? At the base. The 9mm case is tapered, 38 Super is not. So a Spec 38 Super cartridge is .384 in diameter vs .391 for 9mm at the base.

Are you shooting your 9mm major loads in a 38 super gun? If not I wouldn't worry about it. /check the SAAMI spec for each cartridge and the reason for this will be clear. http://www.saami.org/PubResources/CC_Drawings/Pistol/9mm%20Luger%20-%209mm%20Luger%20+P.pdf. http://www.saami.org/PubResources/CC_Drawings/Pistol/38%20Super%20Auto%20+P%20-%2038%20Automatic.pdf.

I did not know that, thanks Peter. Thank you for all your posts on EAAs! Got me interested in a Hunter .45 that I picked up a while back. Now if I could just find a bolt on magwell and aluminum grips at reasonable prices I would be in heaven.

I have to stop every 100 rounds or so with mine too (to refill the primer tube!) Maybe it's because I don't use a case feeder yet but I have yet to have a single non-operator caused issue loading with my LNL.