Low Recoil = less total energy?

[DawgFvr]

From the Box of Truth: "Reduced recoil loads are easier on the shoulder to shoot. But, you don't get something for nothing. That also means that they will not have the total energy that a heavier load will have. You have to make a choice and go with it".

Ok...please explain to me: Are reduced recoil loads, e.g., Federal Power Shok Low Recoil H13200, using less gun powder...fewer pellets...what? I want a HD load. I am thinking 00 Federal Buckshot. Yes, I would prefer less recoil...for, say, faster follow up shots. I would not, however, want to give up this "total energy" thing if it means the BG/target is not on the receiving end of a full power shotgun shell. Or, will you tell me that, at home defense distances, one does not need the energy produced by a regular shot shell? Also...are "tactical loads" and reduced "reduced recoil loads" the same thing?

 

[GigaBuist]

Tactical and Reduced Recoil are the same thing. You're pushing the pellets with less powder than you would in a standard load.

<i>Or, will you tell me that, at home defense distances, one does not need the energy produced by a regular shot shell?</i>

All I'll say is that an 180lb man goes down easier than an 180lb buck. Humans are soft and fleshy. We break easier.

 

[ArmedBear]

All I'll say is that an 180lb man goes down easier than an 180lb buck. Humans are soft and fleshy. We break easier.

Remember also that velocity drops pretty quickly with round balls.

The reduced-recoil buckshot will be going as fast when it hits an attacker at 5 yards as the full-speed stuff does when it hits a deer at 25.

Also, Remington's Managed Recoil round has 8 pellets instead of 9. So they get lower recoil without dropping the velocity too much.

I'd say that a better followup shot might be worth more than 100 fps.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Yes, 'managed recoil,' 'reduced recoil,' 'tactical,' 'low recoil' and all the other pet names mean essentially the same thing. Reduced recoil means lower velocity due to reduced powder charges, usually. Some companies also reduce payload weight to achieve the same end. At normal-room sized range (20- 30 feet) it shouldn't matter too much which option manufacturers use to reduce recoil in their offerings. At longer ranges however it could make a difference.

Since I am apt to use a shotgun outside as well as inside, I prefer to reserve the reduced recoil for practice, training and an occasional impressive pattern to demonstrate a shotgun's capacity. My preference for buckshot is Hornady TAP FPD, the red hull full velocity load (8 pellets of 00 at about 1600fps), and for slugs I like the Brenneke KO (one ounce at about 1600 fps).

Stay safe,

lpl/nc

 

[Ghost Tracker]

Physics...it's the LAW.

To take this discussion one step further...does this mean my Knoxx CompStock equipped Remington 870 reduces the effectiveness of the ammo I shoot because of the recoil-reduction provided by the stock design? Well...the laws of physics say YES! Imagine firing a shotgun hanging horizonally in mid-air suspended via long wires from a very tall ceiling. With nothing to resist the rearward force of the recoil, the stock would move backward almost as fast as the shot-wad was moving forward (for every action there is an equal & opposet reaction). Therefore ANY method of recoil reduction (EXCEPT increasing the weight of the shotgun) decreases the effectiveness (or force) of the ammo.

 

[Heavy Metal Hero]

Get a 20 guage. I read somewhere the 20 guage has 75% the power of a 12 guage, but 50% of the recoil. I also read it was like getting hit with two .44 Magnum rounds. Problem solved.

 

[Owen]

Hmm, buffered stocks...

I'm going to have to think about this one.

Regardless, I'm sure the effect is miniscule.

 

[RevolvingCylinder]

I would think some of the "opposite and equal reaction" would be absorbed by the CompStock's spring instead of it all being put into the shoulder. I prefer plain wooden stocks myself.

Either load doesn't allow the shot to walk away. Get whatever works best for you.

 

[Ghost Tracker]

Miniscule is correct...but difficult to quantify. I wonder is the "CompStock Effect" would show-up on the chronograph? I would be willing to bet that the standard velocity deviation between shells from the same box would be bigger than the measurable effect of a reduced-recoil stock. But the truth is...whatever pounds of force are removed from the backward recoil are equalled by EXACTLY the same amount of force being removed from the forward traveling shot column. Wait...well, not exactly... the CompStock actually spreads the recoil impulse over a longer time span, it doesn't truly "remove" anything. The subjective "felt" recoil is reduced by virtue of the rearward push from the powder explosion happening over a wider time envelope (it's spread o-u-t, like a shove not a slap). Now, Knoxx advertises a reduction of 54% from felt recoil using their stock. That's substantial & impressive. But unless the shot hits the target with 54% less energy (?) the math doesn't work.

Forgive the thread highjack, but does this interest anyone but me? And, if so, where in the hell does this conversation BELONG?!? I haven't played with physics calculations since college. And we used (gulp) slide-rules.

 

[Owen]

Ghost,

I've got some of the math on my whiteboard right now. When I come up with something, I'll post a new thread.

 

[mindwip]

Well...the laws of physics say YES! Imagine firing a shotgun hanging horizonally in mid-air suspended via long wires from a very tall ceiling. With nothing to resist the rearward force of the recoil, the stock would move backward almost as fast as the shot-wad was moving forward (for every action there is an equal & opposet reaction). Therefore ANY method of recoil reduction (EXCEPT increasing the weight of the shotgun) decreases the effectiveness (or force) of the ammo.

I think you are forgetting something about your "mid-air suspended via long wires" The shotgun is not going to move as much as the pellets becuase of the weight/mass of the shotgun and the gravity anchoring it down. The the force ie explosion is pushing on two things one is the ammo and one is the bolt/gun. The ammo weight is what 1oz and the shotgun weight is 9 pounds loaded. The explosion will push the ammo with greater force and faster becuase it is easyer to move somthing with a mass/weight of 1oz then 9pounds.

And sence it takes longer to move the heavy shotgun, by the time the shotgun would of moved enough to truely effect the ammo, the ammo will have already exited the barrel meaning it does not matter what the shotgun does, as it will have no effect on the ammo

Just my 2 cents

 

[wdlsguy]

Energy is proportional to the mass of the projectile, but it's proportional to the square of the velocity of the projectile.

A 1 ounce slug leaving the barrel at 1200 fps will have a muzzle energy of 1397 foot-pounds, while the same slug leaving the barrel at 1600 fps will have a muzzle energy of 2484 foot-pounds.

 

[TrapperReady]

I like this concept.

As I get older, it's not that I have less total energy... I just have lower recoil.

 

[JesseL]

Interestingly, since recoil is proportional to momentum (Mass X Velocity) while energy is Mass X Velocity^2 it is possible for a light recoiling, low weight, high velocity round to have more energy that a heavy recoiling, heavy weight, low velocity round.

But in the case of things like managed recoil loads, they almost always reduce velocity or bullet mass or both as compared with the standard load; so there is a net loss of energy too.

 

[GRIZ22]

I've only used the Remington Low Recoil ammo in 12 GA. There is a side benefit I found with the 00 Buck in a cylinder bore (no choke shotgun). Standard hi-velocity 00 tends to donut after 15-20 yards. Depending on the shotgun I've seen this doughnout open up to the point you can be holding dead on a combat size target and miss completely. The low recoil patterns much tighter and and you can keep at least half of the pellets on a combat target out to 35-40 yards.

The low recoil slug travels about 1300 fps vs 1600 fps. The low recoil gives less energy and penetration if that's what you need. Against soft targets out to 50 yds or so I'd say that anything hit by a low recoil slug that left the bore at 1300 fps would swear that slug was doing 1600 fps.

The low recoil ammo does allow you to follow up faster. When we started using the low recoil ammo at the agency I retired from the number of agents qualifying with a shotgun quadrupled. It also serve as a reference for new shooters who think the low recoil "kicks a lot". I let them shoot a round of hi-velocity and they don't think the low recoil is all that bad.

 

[Audie]

the impulse delivered to the shot is the same as that delivered to the gun.

Impluse is Force x time. Once the shot leaves the barrel, the gun ceases its recoil acceleration. The time is the same for both impulses. the much more massive gun produces less backwards acceleration than the much less massive shot's forward acceleration.

Momentum need not come into this at all. It is just a simplication that avoids thinking about acceleration which is less understandable to most folks. AND, because this question brings the shooter's shoulder into the problem, momentum is not conserved (which is principally why Physics types like to use momentum ) as the shoulder exerts an external force on the gun attempting to manage recoil.

Stopping the gun from moving during the blast will not effect the impulse delivered to the shot in any significant way. The time for the shot to leave the barrel is so short, any movement of the barrel backwards which would reduce the time that the expanding gas is pushing the shot is insignificant due to the ratio of the gun's mass to the shot's mass. Even if the shooter does not push on the gun with the shoulder!


mindwip has the right idea, it's all about time.

 

[mindwip]

Now the question to ask is, if you shot a bullet that travels 1600ft per sec from the top of a train facing its rear, and the train is going 1600ft per sec. Will the bullet stand still (to the eyes of some one standing next to the train as it passes) and seem to float there untill it runs out of energy. OR will it still travel 1600ft per sec relative to someone on the ground?

 

[Audie]

Galileo and Newton say yes, Einstein says no, but impossible to measure at those low speeds. and of course you have to find that fast train.

But you forgot something.

The bullet is still acted on by gravity. It will fall to the ground right in front of you as if it was just dropped out of the muzzle....ignoring air resistance of course.

LOL. I like your thinking.

 

[mindwip]

Yeah thats what i thought, but if the bullet never went faster then 1600, then would it even make it out of the barrel(lets make the barrel 5inchs)? I dont think it would

 

[telomerase]

You can always reduce recoil while keeping the same energy by increasing the velocity of the projectile while lowering the mass. Energy is one-half the mass times the energy squared. There is a device in common use which takes advantage of this principle: it is called a "rifle". Seriously, if smoothbores were upgraded to late-19th-century pressures, you could make great HD loads with less recoil (more noise, though).

Does Glaser make a 12-gauge frangible slug?

 

[Gohon]

Now, Knoxx advertises a reduction of 54% from felt recoil using their stock. That's substantial & impressive. But unless the shot hits the target with 54% less energy (?) the math doesn't work.

Sure it does............... take note of the word felt. Felt recoil is different for each person. But Free Recoil, the one where the math would work is a horse of a different color.

 

[Audie]

Felt is the right word. It has nothing to do with the shot, the shot is gone down range. it is the gun being stopped during its recoil by the shoulder. If you can increase the time to stop the guns backwards travel, you reduce the felt force. Thats why you pad the back of the stock. You are confusing the fact that there are three objects involved in firing the shotgun. The shot, the recoiling gun, and the shoulder. the shoulder feels the recoil.

Like catching a baseball with your bare hands. you let the hand travel backwards as you catch it so it doesn't hurt.

wip...pressure in gun will make the bullet come out regardless of what happens after.

 

[Popov]

Physics nerdery

Yeah thats what i thought, but if the bullet never went faster then 1600, then would it even make it out of the barrel(lets make the barrel 5inchs)? I dont think it would

But you must remember, that the barrel is also traveling at 1600 ft/sec. As long as the bullet is in the barrel, the expanding gasses would push it out as if you were standing still. But, as soon as it exited the barrel, the bullet would be going 1600 ft/sec in the opposite direction, and the two velocities would cancel out, and the bullet would appear to a bystander to be just dropped to the ground. All this is said negating air resistance.

 

[sm]

Math is not my strong point.
Boxes pack dishes, made great tanks to play in as a kid.
I am a shotgunner, I want a bone stock shotgun that fits, I want one versatile enough to do what I can do with one - I ain't going to some stock that restricts me. Gimme ME wood and blue.

I know about recoil stocks, the wood ones. Folks that actually shoot the durn things putting 30k rds a year on one easy. Detached retinas, other physical problems.
Not folks wanting Kewl Points, to look like Buck Rogers or TEEM SEEL that bolt stuff on and off and post on Internet and wouldn't know a shotgun shell if it walked up and French Kissed them.

I shoot dirt, Mentors & Elders did this, how we tested loads and all. Replicated projectiles removed from critters we shot. With guns that fit and using THE only recoil pad - Pachmayr Decelerator.

We made our own "less recoil loads" back when I was a brat.

One gives something up - When they give something up -Mentor

That I understand.

 

[Audie]

yup, that's what I said....physics nerdery....depends on your perspective I guess...there are a few of us that make it our profession.

LOL.