Neomet Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 "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 like to think that my personal attacks are forum independent." Your comments make it clear that this is neither a charity service or done to end ignorance. It is done in an attempt to feel superior to others. Hope it keeps you warm at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterthefish Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 "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 like to think that my personal attacks are forum independent." Your comments make it clear that this is neither a charity service or done to end ignorance. It is done in an attempt to feel superior to others. Hope it keeps you warm at night. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feederic Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 (edited) Overall, momentum is conserved, a heavier gun will feel softer at a given power factor because the velocity of the gun is reduced and not because there is any less energy in our fired shot (back to Newton's 3rd). If you disagree that is totally fine by me. I've only tried to apply proper physics to this thread as some pretty wild numbers have been thrown out. Eppur si muove. 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. Edited June 25, 2014 by feederic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neomet Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 "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 like to think that my personal attacks are forum independent." Your comments make it clear that this is neither a charity service or done to end ignorance. It is done in an attempt to feel superior to others. Hope it keeps you warm at night. 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. Ah, an internet toughguy also. This was hard to see coming. No, really. Never imagined it. Total shock. Enjoy your diminishing moments here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterthefish Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Ah, an internet toughguy also. This was hard to see coming. No, really. Never imagined it. Total shock. Enjoy your diminishing moments here. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterthefish Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Overall, momentum is conserved, a heavier gun will feel softer at a given power factor because the velocity of the gun is reduced and not because there is any less energy in our fired shot (back to Newton's 3rd). If you disagree that is totally fine by me. I've only tried to apply proper physics to this thread as some pretty wild numbers have been thrown out. Eppur si muove. 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neomet Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 (edited) The comments weren't about you Peter. Others in the thread were using Google as their source for a debate on Physics. You know more about physics than I ever would or could. As far as veiled threats, not really. Historically the mods have a low tolerance for insults. We will see, or I should say you will see. I've grown bored enough of your sniping that I am taking my ball and leaving. Edited June 26, 2014 by Neomet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterthefish Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 The comments weren't about you Peter. Others in the thread were using Google as their source for a debate on Physics. You know more about physics than I ever would or could. As far as veiled threats, not really. Historically the mods have a low tolerance for insults. We will see, or I should say you will see. I've grown bored enough of your sniping that I am taking my ball and leaving. 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeRush Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 I have stated that the FRE is not a reasonable approximation of the recoil a shooter experiences when a shot is fired and I maintain that position. This will be my last post in this thread. I'm tired of this. Once the name calling starts you know minds are closed. Insults are usually what people resort to when they don't have anything relevant left to say on a topic. I offer my sincere apologies if my suggestions of giving people internet cookies were offensive. Consider the following: Bone stock guns here- if you don't believe my numbers handloads.com has a "Recoil Calculator" to simplify calculation of FRE available, plug the numbers in and see for yourself. Disclaimer: like the Wikipedia article that feederic copied his formula from, both sources say that free recoil is not felt recoil, or the net recoil experienced by a shooter, and to varying degrees point out the very real limitations of that formula. Gun 1: Glock 35 weight- 27.14 oz Add a Limited legal +5 extension and fill the mag with bullets- 17.4 oz Total weight of loaded gun is 44.54 oz, or 2.78375 lbs. 180 gr projectile 5 gr powder charge 918 fps This load makes Major power factor. FRE= 3.91 ft/lbs Gun 2: Glock 17 weight- 25.06 oz With an empty mag. Total weight of gun is 25.06 oz, or 1.56625 lbs. 124 gr projectile 5 gr powder charge 1000 fps This load is sub minor. FRE= 4.2 ft/lbs Is there anyone here who would say a stock G35, loaded to Ltd capacity using Major power factor loads has less recoil than the last round fired out of a stock G17 loaded SUB Minor? Yet there it is- FRE calculations state exactly that. Not a reasonable approximation. 2 Glocks, one is major and full, the other is sub minor and empty, and yet the sub minor gun has more recoil? Gun 3: Same G35- 27.14 oz With an empty mag Total weight of empty gun is 27.14 oz, or 1.69625 lbs. 180 gr projectile 5 gr powder charge 918 fps Same Major power factor load as Gun 1. FRE= 6.41 ft/lbs Comparing the Gun 1, full G35 to Gun 3, the last round fired out of that same G35, same load, same power factor we get 6.41/3.91=1.639. Roughly a 64% increase. You start a stage, fire your first shot, and at the end of the stage run the gun dry. Did your last shot fired have 64% more recoil? I understand it might FEEL a bit different on the last round than the first- but do you believe you experienced 64% more recoil? Not a reasonable approximation. How much does the gun move relative to the shooter's hands? Does the gun ever achieve significant velocity relative to the shooter? Would that velocity match the velocity used in the FRE? Without having a checkerboard behind it we can't really tell what velocity the gun reaches but I would suggest again that a shooter holds a gun and becomes part of the system and that the theoretical velocity used to calculate FRE will never be reached. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovO_2OAJ-HU#t=55 I maintain that momentum, rather than free recoil energy, is a more reasonable way to approximate the recoil experienced by the shooter. What is power factor? It is mass times velocity, essentially momentum without correcting to conventional units. Maybe someone put some thought into it, maybe not, but that seems awfully similar to allowing the shooter to pick a caliber, load and gun that will provide the feel he or she desires while keeping the minimum momentum constant for all shooters at a given power factor. I'm comparing non compensated guns to non compensated guns here. I won't bother graphing out FRE with a constant weight gun between a 22 and a 44 mag- it is a red herring. FRE is not a reasonable approximation of recoil experienced by the shooter as seen above. You just might find that if you graphed the momentum of projectiles from 22 to 44 mag you would see that the big boomers people associate with recoil have more momentum than the 22. No shock there. Despite all of the discussion in light of the calculations demonstrated above I will submit that Mr. Cheely was right, Akkid17 was right- we are dealing with conservation of momentum. Imagine that. The weight and velocity of the projectile you fire determines how much recoil you experience. A higher PF load will recoil more, and a lower PF load will recoil less. The FRE measures kinetic energy of an unsupported gun which leads to disproportionate results, back to the sub minor empty Glock vs the loaded major Glock, or letting your major Glock run out of ammo. I've only been trying to help people understand that recoil isn't magically absorbed by a heavier gun, and I have shared some other thoughts on how tungsten barrels might allow a gun to be perceived as shooting softer at a given weight which absolutely can be beneficial to a gun's shootability. I am curious to try a tungsten sleeved gun. Whether you as a shooter prefer to experience a slower moving system for a longer period of time or a faster moving system over a shorter period of time is up to you. This may also help you sort out your own thoughts on gun weight: http://www.brazoscustom.com/magart/light_vs_heavy.htm I don't need to be right on the Internet. I believe that I am after thinking things through and engaging in discussion. The actual FRE calculations above give me reason to believe what I understand in theory is correct. I am the world's foremost expert on my own opinion, which shouldn't really surprise anyone, but I like for people to be able to make informed decisions so check out the FRE numbers, play with the equation, and see for yourself. Thanks to everyone who tried to have a real discussion on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonglee0507 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Tungsten sleeved barrel with steel grip @170pf Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feederic Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 (edited) Gun 1: Glock 35 weight- 27.14 oz Add a Limited legal +5 extension and fill the mag with bullets- 17.4 oz Total weight of loaded gun is 44.54 oz, or 2.78375 lbs. 180 gr projectile 5 gr powder charge 918 fps This load makes Major power factor. FRE= 3.91 ft/lbs Gun 3: Same G35- 27.14 oz With an empty mag Total weight of empty gun is 27.14 oz, or 1.69625 lbs. 180 gr projectile 5 gr powder charge 918 fps Same Major power factor load as Gun 1. FRE= 6.41 ft/lbs I've only been trying to help people understand that recoil isn't magically absorbed by a heavier gun, and I have shared some other thoughts on how tungsten barrels might allow a gun to be perceived as shooting softer at a given weight which absolutely can be beneficial to a gun's shootability. I am curious to try a tungsten sleeved gun. 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 disclaimer on perceived recoil has a few interesting sentences if you read them carefully enough. I will snip them for you bud. Beginning sentences: "The numbers calculated here do not relate to "felt recoil". Felt recoil is different for each person, what is excessive for me might not be for you and vice versa." Last sentence: "It will however give you a good idea how one load will feel compared to another in the same or similar firearm." Well shucks.... I've only counter argued that FRE can be relevant, which you opine is not. I do agree it is not the end all be all, which is stated in the definition of the term free recoil energy itself because there are too many variables to take into account. Since I was playing with the recoil calculator, it was nice to see that a 2lb gun and a 3lb gun under 165pf ammo would also have about a 60% change in velocity between the two guns. Strictly using conservation of momentum and taking the resultant gun velocity this is what we get: Gun 3: 1.69625 lbs. 180 gr projectile 5 gr powder charge 918 fps Gun Velocity: 15.66 fps Gun 3 Loaded: 2.7 lbs. 180 gr projectile 5 gr powder charge 918 fps Gun Velocity: 9.8 fps Delta between the two = 15.66/9.8 = 1.59 or about a 59% increase in gun velocity at the same power factor. Not so out of line with the 64% figure FRE predicted that you are so disgusted with. Edited June 26, 2014 by feederic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feederic Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Tungsten sleeved barrel with steel grip @170pf Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk Awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paopao Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Just go out and shoot! Have fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paopao Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Sir bonglee how many #s is your recoil spring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonglee0507 Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Sir bonglee how many #s is your recoil spring? 12.5lbs Sent from my iPad Air using Tapatalk HD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ipscjoe Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 (edited) Wish this thread would close. Getting really ridiculous. Edited July 6, 2014 by ipscjoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonglee0507 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 (edited) Jumbo tungsten sleeved barrel .75inch. This gun will be used in next month's world shoot in florida Edited September 22, 2014 by bonglee0507 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeRush Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Looks great! I am guessing the barrel starts out longer and is cut back to fit the IPSC box? Also, I havent seen that magwell before. Is it custom or is it a larger magwell milled to fit the box? I bet it is very stable with the metal grip frame. I handled a couple of jumbo tungsten Metrillo(sp?) 2011s a few weeks back and they felt very solid and definitely had quite a bit of weight forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonglee0507 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 (edited) Looks great! I am guessing the barrel starts out longer and is cut back to fit the IPSC box? Also, I havent seen that magwell before. Is it custom or is it a larger magwell milled to fit the box? I bet it is very stable with the metal grip frame. I handled a couple of jumbo tungsten Metrillo(sp?) 2011s a few weeks back and they felt very solid and definitely had quite a bit of weight forward. It's a fabricated/home made magwell that fits the ipsc box. The barrel is originally a 6 inch kkm barrel cut to 5.3 to fit also the ipsc box. This gun will be used in the world shoot this october Sent from my iPad Air using Tapatalk HD Edited September 22, 2014 by bonglee0507 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeRush Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Looks great! I am guessing the barrel starts out longer and is cut back to fit the IPSC box? Also, I havent seen that magwell before. Is it custom or is it a larger magwell milled to fit the box? I bet it is very stable with the metal grip frame. I handled a couple of jumbo tungsten Metrillo(sp?) 2011s a few weeks back and they felt very solid and definitely had quite a bit of weight forward. It's a fabricated/home made magwell that fits the ipsc box. The barrel is originally a 6 inch kkm barrel cut to 5.3 to fit also the ipsc box. This gun will be used in the world shoot this october Sent from my iPad Air using Tapatalk HD Nice and flat for the double taps. Magwell looks awesome too. Thanks for sharing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbullet Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 What is the base gun (frame/ slide) used out of curiosity? Who's the gunsmith? Trueweight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonglee0507 Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 What is the base gun (frame/ slide) used out of curiosity? Who's the gunsmith? Trueweight? Slide: STI frame: caspian Barrel: KKM precision Gunsmith: Jediwarrior of true weight inc Sent from my iPad Air using Tapatalk HD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevadazielmeister Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 So what does a tungsten sleeved barrel do again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posvar Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 Add weight and make it flatter. I could tell the difference on my Hbar Phanterra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atmar Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 (edited) no more tungsten sleeved barrel in ipsc?? Edited February 19, 2019 by atmar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now