Shotgun Forum banner
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
i just switched from REDDOT to TiGHTwad. and i must say i am very impressed with the loads i am getting out of it. This is a damn good powder and i notice not so much junk left in the barrel as with redot. my loads are a perfect moderate recoil (more light i should say) with a 1,300 fps range. again I recomend Tightwad over redot. plus its cheaper!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,962 Posts
I liked Titewad when I used it and the Hodgdon people are excellent to deal with. I usually use Alliant's Promo though as it is much cheaper locally. The residue is acceptable, much better than the old Red Dot, and as I load 15,000 or so 12 ga shells a year, the savings are important.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
362 Posts
The residue in Red Dot is due to many things including tagants and a high graphite content. Tagants are "markers" in the powder that don't burn (the little red flakes in Red Dot, the green flakes in Green Dot). Clays technology powders have fewer tagants and less graphite than does Red Dot.

Perceived recoil is not reduced to a single factor. Let's hold a couple of things constant: hull type AA, primer WIN 209, and 18 grains of Red Dot. By using different wads, felt recoil will vary. If we hold primer, wad, and hull constant and use different powders, felt recoil again changes. If we hold our internal components constant and vary the hulls, felt recoil again varies. If we vary our wads and primers, perceived recoil again varies. And we haven't even talked about tight barrels vs. lengthened forcing cone barrels, actual bore diameter of the barrel, etc., which makes a given load feel different when shot from different shotguns. And, did you chronograph the load? It may be that one load travels 40fps slower than the other, which of course affects recoil. You can't rely on the published data as you will find identical load data in different manuals showing different velocities and pressures! So, there are a lot of variables to felt recoil.

Titewad and the other Clays technology powders are "good stuff" as is Red Dot, which has been around for about 50 years now. If you want to conduct another felt recoil experiment, try some of the Vihtavouri powders (especially in your deer & elk rifles). Varying powders in high power rifles really effects perceived recoil (let's assume that we will chronograph the bullet at 2600fps and work up loads with different powders in order maintain 2600fps as our desired constant). Very noticeable difference with rifle powders.

As a final note, when Alliant's "E3" powder hits the shelves in a month or two, check it out. It burns clean and you'll need less powder charge than Red Dot to achieve the same velocity.

Meanwhile, enjoy your new found load. But don't stop experimenting with powders yet because it's way too much fun! And if your reloading bench is without a chronograph, get one for Christmas 'cause they're under $100 nowadays. Until I got a Chrony, I was merely guessing at shotgun, rifle, and pistol loads (my steel shot loads really varied from the published data). Again, I'm glad you like your new load.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,272 Posts
What do I think of Titewad? Oh, Jay's a pretty good guy once you get to know him. I wouldn't call him a titewad, just frugal. :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
KJB said:
Perceived recoil is not reduced to a single factor. Let's hold a couple of things constant: hull type AA, primer WIN 209, and 18 grains of Red Dot. By using different wads, felt recoil will vary. If we hold primer, wad, and hull constant and use different powders, felt recoil again changes. If we hold our internal components constant and vary the hulls, felt recoil again varies. If we vary our wads and primers, perceived recoil again varies. And we haven't even talked about tight barrels vs. lengthened forcing cone barrels, actual bore diameter of the barrel, etc., which makes a given load feel different when shot from different shotguns. And, did you chronograph the load? It may be that one load travels 40fps slower than the other, which of course affects recoil. You can't rely on the published data as you will find identical load data in different manuals showing different velocities and pressures! So, there are a lot of variables to felt recoil.
If a 1-1/8 ounce load leaves the muzzle at 1200 fps, it should feel about the same as any other load with the same shot weight and muzzle velocity. Obviously, if you compare loads which have different muzzle velocities, they will not feel the same. If they exit the muzzle at the same speed, the only way that they can have any difference in felt recoil is for them to reach the same velocity over the same distance (the barrel length) by significantly different acceleration curves. I seriously doubt that this is possible. I have been shooting skeet and other clay games for 36 years and have never fealt any difference in loads unless they were obviously different velocities or had different shot weights.

Naturally, this assumes that the gun in question is always the same. We all know that there is a big felt recoil difference between some guns.

If the clams of differences in felt recoil are real, they should be confirmed by a double blind test. I doubt anyone is interested enough to go through a serious test, but until they do, I think those of us who shoot a lot can remain skeptical that anyone can feel the difference in a shot charge accelerating over a distance of 28 inches.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
362 Posts
Sidelock - As you mentioned, various powders have different pressure curves - - despite the fact that Venderwahl's equation says that gas travelling down a bore exits at a constant velocity. Pressure curve seems important in "FELT" recoil.

There exists a group of trapshooters who argue that slow burning powder has less felt recoil than faster burining powder (Green Dot v. Red Dot, International v. Clays, etc). I've heard this talk on the trapfields since the Kennedy administration. There is also a group of trapshooters who argue that the PSI of different loads, travelling at the same velocity, have different felt recoil, despite the fact that the physics laws do not suggest a difference in recoil due to PSI variations. (Some clays shooters argue that lower PSI equates to lower felt recoil).

In shotgun loads I do not perceive recoil differences whether using Red Dot, WST, Clays, 700-X, etc. But my wife will tell you "something feels different" when I slip in a load using 800-X travelling the same velocity as her usual International Clays load. This might be due to pressure curve differences between the two powders, use of different different wads, or pure misperception on her part. But she has noticed the difference every time! Changes in powder type are not noticeable to me in shotgun loads, but are noticeable in rifle loads - - and we're only talking about a 22 inch barrel on a hunting rifle.

It is quite possible that some shooters are more receptive to slight variations in felt recoil than others. That is, my wife and butcher boy may be more receptive to felt recoil than you and I are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
KJB said:
Sidelock - As you mentioned, various powders have different pressure curves - - despite the fact that Venderwahl's equation says that gas travelling down a bore exits at a constant velocity. Pressure curve seems important in "FELT" recoil.
A lot of what shooters perceive is based on what they have been told by other shooters. If someone gives you a box of shells and tells you that they have low recoil, you might be susceptible to a bias in what you "feel" when you shoot the shells. It is necessary in scientific experiments to control not only what the subject knows about the experiment, but also what the tester knows. That is why human experiments are generally considered to require a double blind test. Let me give you an interesting recent example.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/magaz ... RAINS.html

The investigator duplicated the blind Pepsi vs Coke test and verified that Pepsi was the consistent winner. That being the case, one would expect that people would actually buy more Pepsi than Coke. We all know that doesn't happen. When the test was done by honestly telling people which glasses were Pepsi and which were Coke, the preference reversed. Knowing the brand names, people said that Coke tasted better.

"Montague was impressed: he had demonstrated, with a fair degree of neuroscientific precision, the special power of Coke's brand to override our taste buds.

Measuring brand influence might seem like an unusual activity for a neuroscientist, but Montague is just one of a growing breed of researchers who are applying the methods of the neurology lab to the questions of the advertising world. Some of these researchers, like Montague, are purely academic in focus, studying the consumer mind out of intellectual curiosity, with no corporate support. Increasingly, though, there are others -- like several of the researchers at the Mind of the Market Laboratory at Harvard Business School -- who work as full-fledged ''neuromarketers,'' conducting brain research with the help of corporate financing and sharing their results with their sponsors."


There exists a group of trapshooters who argue that slow burning powder has less felt recoil than faster burining powder (Green Dot v. Red Dot, International v. Clays, etc). I've heard this talk on the trapfields since the Kennedy administration.
Yes, so have I. Those same shooters have all sorts of false beliefs about ballistics, including a complete lack of understanding of the drag coefficient for a sphere moving through a fluid. I started shooting and reloading in the days when we were still using Alcan components and fiber wads.

There is also a group of trapshooters who argue that the PSI of different loads, travelling at the same velocity, have different felt recoil, despite the fact that the physics laws do not suggest a difference in recoil due to PSI variations. (Some clays shooters argue that lower PSI equates to lower felt recoil).
These shooters are simply wrong. Pull out your 2003 Hodgdon Basic Reloaders Manual 2003 and read page 38. It says, "Unfortunately, too many shooters think that pressure has an effect on recoil. In truth, it doesn't. It is not included in the formula for calculating recoil as noted in our example. Clean burning powders help limit muzzle blast, are quieter, and therefore seem lower in recoil."

In shotgun loads I do not perceive recoil differences whether using Red Dot, WST, Clays, 700-X, etc.
Your perceptions are correct.

But my wife will tell you "something feels different" when I slip in a load using 800-X travelling the same velocity as her usual International Clays load. This might be due to pressure curve differences between the two powders, use of different different wads, or pure misperception on her part.
Have you chronographed a dozen of each load? If not, how do you know the two loads produce identical muzzle velocities?

But she has noticed the difference every time! Changes in powder type are not noticeable to me in shotgun loads, but are noticeable in rifle loads - - and we're only talking about a 22 inch barrel on a hunting rifle.
Powders make a big difference in the accuracy of bullets, but do not affect recoil, if the muzzle velocities are identical.

It is quite possible that some shooters are more receptive to slight variations in felt recoil than others. That is, my wife and butcher boy may be more receptive to felt recoil than you and I are.
It is also possible that they are comparing loads which they think have identical muzzle velocities and ejecta mass, when in fact there are differences. It is also possible that they are comparing differences in sound and muzzle blast, as indicated by Hodgdon.
 
G

·
Wow...this post made my brain hurt; especially after a few beers. Great information...I don't reload as of yet, but it's good to see a couple of seemingly knowledgeable people dispute information.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
362 Posts
I have been busy and out of town. I shall resume.

Sidelock - As I stated in my first post, a chronograph is an absolute necessity for any type of reloading. Also as stated in an above post, I chronograph all of my handloads - - rifle, shotgun, pistol. You will be amazed at how much disparity exists between published data and what actually comes out of your gun at the muzzle and downrange. Hence, my urgence for butcher boy to ask Santa for a Chrony ($69 nowadays, and hours of fun). I stumbled onto the need of a chrony by accident. One day, I was at the rifle range trying to figure out why my 30-06 was not achieving the published downrange trajectory. A fellow club member was shooting his new 7mm-08 Remington over a chronograph three benches away from me. I asked if I could shoot my '06 from his bench "to see what my load is really doing." He welcomed me. Much to my chagrin, my 180 grain Sierra boattail was barely reaching 2500fps, a far cry from the 2700fps published data. My first remark to Ken was:" Do you think this thing is right? My bullet is travelling more than 200fps slower than it is supposed to with this load." Five more shots, the fastest being 2521fps were shot over his Oehler Chronograph. I said: "No wonder I'm so low at 400 meters. I shot a few more of my rifles over Ken's chrony and decided I'd have to buy one. I ordered one and the fun began. That was about 16 years ago (believe me, they were not $69 in 1988, they were $169).

From my discoveries with my deer rifles and elk rifles, I decided to chronograph my steel shot loads "just for the heck of it." That was back when steel shot reloading was brand new. Once again, I was amazed at the results. My steel shot loads were not achieving the published data.A huge chasm existed between NTCs data and what my Browning pump actually produced. Not only was the velocity below par, but the standard deviation was unacceptable. Over the next year, I chronographed every rifle, pistol, and shotgun load I used in my guns and the loads of my friends as well (shooting their loads in their rifles and shotguns). I chronographed loads in 100 degree summer days and in 8 degree winter days just to see if and how much temperature affected the results. I manipulated my loads by primer, brass mfgr., powder type, powder mfgr., hull type, wad type, bullet seating depth, crimp depth, and anything I could think of just to "see-fer-myself." It was fun, and to this day, I thank the Lord Jesus Christ for allowing me to get laid off frequently over those sixteen months or so. "What could be better than this," I asked myself, "Here I am getting up every morning while the wind is calm, watching the sunrise. I'm collecting unemployment to sit here and practice my shooting and conducting shooting experiments. Life is really great."

So, I urge butcher boy, and everyone else, to get a chrony, work up some loads, and go see what you'll learn. It will be an awful lot of knowledge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
362 Posts
I am well aware of experiemntal design in research as I have taught and tutored statistics and research methods both at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Double-blind experiments are used in research as are other methods. So, Sidelock is incorrect in leading us to believe that only double blind experiments are "good enough" for human research. I'll be the first to admit that statistics and research methods sometimes falls short of reality, but they are all that we have to work with. Just as double-blind experiments are important, there are non-intrusive methods that also tell us something about reality. So, we've got to use them all.

Sidelock mentioned that people can be influenced by peer pressure and the power of suggestion. This is true (See Spanos, N.P. (1982) Acting as if You are Hypnotized, as cited in Hock (1992) Forty Studies that Changed Psychology). Even when confronted with data that proves them wrong. Some people will "bet the house" that what they perceive is true. It is these types of "strongly held beliefs" that prompt research. It is these types of strongly held beliefs that persuade us to investigate "Who Killed JFK" and "whether there is a God." (Actually, it was Plato's question, "What is Real?" that prompted research into further development. But we'll leave Plato out of this for now.)

The equation for recoil is based on the law of the Conservation of Momentum. There are indeed some assumptions and "averaged" figures used in the calculations. But from the velocity of free recoil equation, the energy of free recoil can be computed. In short, the law posits that a projectile launched at a given velocity has the same amount of free recoil (movement in the opposite direction) regardless of powder type. The law does not take into consideration the burning rate and pressure curve of the gunpower used. The law merely stated that a projectile of a given weight, travelling at a given velocity, has "X" amount of energy in the opposite direction. Do you think a one-ounce payload, travelling at 1200 fps, shot thorugh a bore (let's say a 30 inch 12 gauge shotgun barrel) has the same FELT recoil whether we use gunpowder, liquid hydrogen, gasoline, or compressed air as the accelerant? I don't. Likewise, the chemical compounds of different gunpowders are, believe it or not, different. Hence, they do not have identical properties such as burning rate and pressure curve.

Again, powder types are a factor in FELT recoil even though they are not a factor in the law of Conservation of Momentum.

In the shotgun world, there is an argument that bore size is related to FELT recoil. Lots of notable gunsmiths eek out a living by machining shotgun bores to a specific diameter to reduce recoil. I have not been able to conduct any first-hand experiments along these lines. But I think there must be something to it. If there isn't something to it, guys like Leo Harrison III, Ray Stafford, Bonillas, Bender, and Perazzi are liars. I can't think of a reason why the top shotgun producers would ask your preference in bore size if the theories about bore size are pure folly. I don't think Stan Baker was a liar (I had the pleasure of meeting him in years gone by, a real down-to-earth guy) and he certanly made his contributions to the world of reduced recoil. If the law of the Conservation of Momentum is absolutely true, and tells us all there is to know about recoil, then bore size can't affect recoil and everyone who ProPorts their guns or has had the forcing cone lengthened in their shotgun or has had their shotgun bored to a specific diameter has wasted their money. (Anyone who has had these services performed on their shotgun, please chime in and tell us whether your money was wasted. And if anyone has had their .338 Win or .378 Weatherby magnaported or some sort of muzzle brake installed to reduce recoil please tell us if your money was wasted).

Sidelock,alludes to the notion that "If you tell a lie long enough, people will believe it." I don't think the citizens I've associated with on trap fields, skeet fields, sporting clay fields, and in benchrest rifle competitions are liars. I think they have noticed a few things over the years. One of the things they've noticed is a difference in felt recoil with different gunpowders.
 
G

·
KJB said:
I am well aware of experiemntal design in research as I have taught and tutored statistics and research methods both at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Double-blind experiments are used in research as are other methods. So, Sidelock is incorrect in leading us to believe that only double blind experiments are "good enough" for human research.
I don't see the extrapolation you just made. I didn't say the words you used. What I did say was intended to address the issue of shooter bias. A blind test (double of single) is the only reasonable method of determining whether or not a shooter can actually feel the difference between loads which reliable produce the same muzzle velocity.

In short, the law posits that a projectile launched at a given velocity has the same amount of free recoil (movement in the opposite direction) regardless of powder type.
Well yes, if you define "movement" as momentum. The usual meaning of "movement" is displacement (distance). The thing that is being conserved is momentum.

The law does not take into consideration the burning rate and pressure curve of the gunpower used. The law merely stated that a projectile of a given weight, travelling at a given velocity, has "X" amount of energy in the opposite direction. Do you think a one-ounce payload, travelling at 1200 fps, shot thorugh a bore (let's say a 30 inch 12 gauge shotgun barrel) has the same FELT recoil whether we use gunpowder, liquid hydrogen, gasoline, or compressed air as the accelerant? I don't.
I think you are guessing. Your example would be unrealistic, unless the various propellants were restrained to stay within the pressure limits of a 12 ga shotgun. Of course, they would also have to stay within the mass range of shotgun powder, or else the ejecta mass would not be a fair comparison. If you are correct, you must show so by a real test, not speculation. The whole problem with the matter of felt recoil is that people like to speculate and not run blind tests to show that they are correct.

Likewise, the chemical compounds of different gunpowders are, believe it or not, different. Hence, they do not have identical properties such as burning rate and pressure curve.
We all know that powders are different, or else we would not have a reason to discuss this topic. The point is that shotgun powders must move a mass from zero velocity to 1200 fps in the fixed length of a shotgun barrel. They must do so without producing pressures which exceed the pressure safety limit. This does not leave a large amount of room for variation.

Again, powder types are a factor in FELT recoil even though they are not a factor in the law of Conservation of Momentum.
This may be true, but it has not been demonstrated by your comments nor those of anyone else. You are speculating and I believe that you have simply bought into the claim that there is a difference. I think I previously quoted the folks at Hodgdon: "The only real way to lessen recoil is to lower velocities, or lessen shot charge, or both." My guess is that they are not ignorant of this topic. They go on to deny that slow burning powders produce less recoil and to claim that this is a perception that is likely related to factors such as muzzle blast.

In the shotgun world, there is an argument that bore size is related to FELT recoil. Lots of notable gunsmiths eek out a living by machining shotgun bores to a specific diameter to reduce recoil.
Have these people demonstrated that the felt recoil change is real? To do so, they must show that, with all other variables held constant, a shooter can reliably determine the difference in recoil, without knowing whether or not the gun he is shooting is backbored or not. If you were trying to "eek out a living" by selling something, would you be satisfied that your customers pay for something they believe is there? The seller benefits by allowing the buyer to think he is getting something, whether or not it is real.

I have not been able to conduct any first-hand experiments along these lines. But I think there must be something to it.
Just like the Coke versus Pepsi study I posted in this thread.

I don't think Stan Baker was a liar (I had the pleasure of meeting him in years gone by, a real down-to-earth guy) and he certanly made his contributions to the world of reduced recoil.
Has Baker presented you with a blind study to demonstrate this effect? If not, how did you determine that he "knows" the answer? If he is simply basing his belief on the same things as others (stories), does that make him a liar? I find it very strange that someone would introduce such an inflammatory word into a discussion of this type.

Sidelock,alludes to the notion that "If you tell a lie long enough, people will believe it."
My comments were more civil than that. I frankly dislike your injection of the word "lie" in this discussion. It is inflammatory and emotional. I didn't use it and I think it is out of place here.

I don't think the citizens I've associated with on trap fields, skeet fields, sporting clay fields, and in benchrest rifle competitions are liars.
I sincerely expect that they are not liars. That does not mean that they know the facts pertaining to whether or not felt recoil can reliably be determined by a shooter under controlled conditions in which muzzle velocity is constant. You seem to be emotionally bothered by something which is more a matter of physics than the comments of unscientific observers (whether they are your friends or not).

I think they have noticed a few things over the years. One of the things they've noticed is a difference in felt recoil with different gunpowders.
Maybe they are correct. Maybe they are not. Either way, you have not demonstrated that they are right and Hodgdon is wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
Thank you Chase. It was interesting reading. The author wrote:

I know there are many shooters who are convinced that they can tell slow from fast powders when they shoot them. These data say that if they can, they aren't using the speed of the recoiling gun to do it.
His conclusion is consistent with what I said and what is written in the Hodgdon manual. It is not supportive of the claims made by KJB.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
362 Posts
Sidelock - Of course I subscribe to the notion that there is a difference in felt recoil based on powder type. If I did not, I certainly would not be engaging in this post and prompting further thought on this topic.

There is a time limit or word limit on this forum for responses. Hence my reason for posting lengthy responses in seperate segments.

I too doubt that anyone is interested enough in conducting research, capable of publication in a scientific journal, on the subject: "Felt Recoil in Trap Guns Based on Powder Type: Is it Real?" I argue that: 1) The phenomenon might well be real; and 2) The equation for the Conservation of Momentum does not tell us everything there is to know about recoil. I think the equation is suspect or that another equation might be more apropo. I am not going to devote my life to creating or developing a better equation, nor am I going to modify the existing equation. It is skepticism (even of my type) that has prompted science to change its mind on a few things. But I am not going to spend money and effort to investigate my notions further. Evidently, unless there is a study capable of publication you will not even consider the possibility that the phenomenon exists. Do you have a 100% confidence level that the phenomenon does not exits?

You are bothered by my wording. I'm glad that you are. A lie is a false statement. A liar is someone who deceives. If the shotgun mfgrs. and gunsmiths say that bore diameter affects recoil, when it does not, then they are telling a lie. Hence, they are liars. You allude to this notion throughout your posts. You also allude to the notion that people who proclaim a difference in felt recoil based on powder type are putting forth false statements. Well then, they are liars. You also put forth the notion that people are duped by marketing. (I expect you to reply that you didn't use the word duped). In the instant case, that people are duped into believing that proproting, barrel reaming and things of the such have an effect on felt recoil when they do not have any effect on recoil. I do not agree with your marketing beliefs. I think you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool them all. (You may replace the word "fool" with "dupe" in my previous sentence).

Finally, it is always safe, but a copout, especially in this case, to say that "XYZ has put forth no evidence to suggest ..." No. I have not conducted a scientific experiment on this topic. No. I do not have empirical data to support my beliefs. But I'll present an argument - - which I am sure you won't agree with because it is not empiricism. But it is part of what prompts me to "buy into" (using your words is not inflamatory to me, I'll use them if you like) the felt recoil beliefs.

I'm nearing the timelimit/wordlimit and this will be a lengthy example, so I'll post it in another reply, later today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
KJB said:
I argue that: 1) The phenomenon might well be real; and 2) The equation for the Conservation of Momentum does not tell us everything there is to know about recoil. I think the equation is suspect or that another equation might be more apropo.
For item 1, you are right, it might be true, but it is highly unlikely. The belief that this is true is based on stories told by one shooter to another. Item 2 is something you appear to want to discount but have no basis for doing so. I assume that by now you have reviewed all of the material that was posted on the web page which was referenced by Chase. This is good experimental work.

http://www.claytargettesting.com/study2 ... tudy2.html

In my opinion this work is a convincing confirmation that there is no difference in the recoil or the recoil characteristics produced by differences in powder burning rates. Those findings are completely consistent with the statements made in the Hodgon reloading manual.

There is a word which expresses the position you have taken: mumpsimus. If you are not familiar with the word I am sure you can find it in an online unabridged dictionary.

Evidently, unless there is a study capable of publication you will not even consider the possibility that the phenomenon exists.
There are two credible sources of information which refute your belief. One is the Hodgdon manual and the other is the experimental work of Neil Wilson. Your position is supported by hearsay, stories, and personal bias.

Do you have a 100% confidence level that the phenomenon does not exits?
No, but I don't have 100% confidence in lots of things, including that the wheels will not fall off of my car when I drive it. I do have complete confidence that the only evidence on the table disputes your belief. There are people who believe in astrology and medical quackery, but there is no reason that any rational person should adopt their beliefs.

You are bothered by my wording. I'm glad that you are. A lie is a false statement.
A lie is an intentionally false statement, designed to deceive. If a person tells me that he believes that astrology is a reliable means of predicting future actions, I don't assume that he is lying, because I expect he is sincere and ignorant.

If the shotgun mfgrs. and gunsmiths say that bore diameter affects recoil, when it does not, then they are telling a lie. Hence, they are liars.
I agree, if they know that they are promulgating false information. If they do not know so, they are doing nothing more than the people on the trap fields who are swapping baseless stories.

You allude to this notion throughout your posts. You also allude to the notion that people who proclaim a difference in felt recoil based on powder type are putting forth false statements.
No, I did not. Please quote what I wrote instead of trying to invent something which I did not write. I have heard people making all kinds of silly claims about guns, hunting, and shooting. A good bit of it is nonsense, but the people who believe those things actually believe them (or so I expect). I consider the use of the word "lie" to be a very serious accusation and one which could amount to slander (when spoken). In any case it is inflammatory and offensive and very inappropriate in this discussion.

Well then, they are liars.
I think your willingness to call people liars is repulsive.

You also put forth the notion that people are duped by marketing.
I presented a scientific study (with link) which showed that people changed their product preference on the basis of brand name only, even when they had an opposite preference in a blind test. The study showed what happens in the brain images produced by fMIR.

In the instant case, that people are duped into believing that proproting, barrel reaming and things of the such have an effect on felt recoil when they do not have any effect on recoil.
Yes, if and only if the actions taken had no effect on muzzle velocity, gun weight, or other variables. If fiddling with a gun barrel changes the muzzle velocity, then the recoil will change as expected.

I do not agree with your marketing beliefs.
I did not state any marketing belief. I presented the findings of a scientific study.

I think you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool them all. (You may replace the word "fool" with "dupe" in my previous sentence).
Your use of a cliché does not add anything to the validity of your ingrained belief.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
658 Posts
Fellers, if a guy says he feels less recoil, then he feels less recoil. I think it's not reducible to an equation.

But it's interesting reading! Sidelock and KJB both know their stuff - I can't wait to see which is the first to factor in the Higgs boson.[/img]
 
G

·
Apparantly you have not been paying attention. Let it be clear. I do not have even one BB of empiraical evidence to support my argument. In the absence of empiricism from my viewpoint, you have concluded your position.
Define knowledge for me.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top