Quote:
Originally Posted by wayne goerres
Were going the long way around the barn to tell me what I already know. The shells are as advertised. Now I didnt conograph the load But the recoil is mild and the noise level is low. Recoil is more of a precieved thing. What seems like a lot of recoil to one person dos'nt seem like mutch to the next person. I have used this formula and in the real world it dosnt mean much other than to tell you how much reaward thrust your load along with the weight of the gun will generate. How each person precieves that thrust is different. We have gone a long way from a load that IMHO wont break your stock. I am tickled to death that someone is manufactureing a shell and selling it locally that I feel safe putting through my doubles.
|
Wayne,
You started a good thread which evolved into a discussion the ol' pressure vs. recoil subject. Common sense would indicate that low felt recoil should not crack a stock. Fair enough. I hope we all realize that low recoil may be from low or high peak pressure. Most if not all shooter could not notice the difference in a large amount of slow burning powder or a load of ultra fast burning powder that produces a peak pressure in excess of what is considered safe so long as the load leaves the barrel at the same velocity.
In a fluid steel Parker who would care about low pressure? Not many unless someone honed or reamed the barrels thin enough to become dangerous! Removing pits from barrels is easy to do but keeping the bore concentric with the barrel exterior is far from easy! I have encountered such barrels and retired them from service.
For anyone reading this thread wanting to shoot a Damascus barreled gun, or fluid steel for that matter that has unknown barrel thickness, smoothly honed barrels to the point of being dangerous combined with a moderate peak pressure could cost them a finger or an eye! That is why some of us take this subject seriously. What we post on this PGCA forum is read by thousands of collectors and shooters. As PGCA members we try to provide accurate information with supporting references about a potentially dangerous subject whenever possible.
Pete and I and others dive into the science of ballistics because we shoot the Short Ten extensively for which there is precious little loading data available. Pete comprised a spreadsheet a year or two ago of the available loads which do not always accommodate the powder, primers, hulls, and type of shot that we may have available. For load development we measure velocity and peak pressure.
Once again, thanks for starting a great topic!
Mark
07-08-2013, 08:53 PM
Linear Mode
