pre war K22 range report

[skyraider]

In a former life I was a science teacher. It's been a long time and I've forgotten more than I remember!

I think the issue is not as much the projectile as it is the charge going off that fires the projectile. That charge is what starts both the bullet and the barrel moving. Obviously, the bullet weighs a tiny amount and moves extremely fast. The firearm weighs a lot more and doesn't move nearly as fast.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The charge goes off, the bullet--and gases--leave the case and exit the muzzle. Behind the cylinder is the frame (recoil shield or whatever it is called), and it is not open. The gases exit out the muzzle, but they expand in all directions. That expansion is directed by the casing which is encased in the cylinder wall, which puts pressure on the empty case towards the rear of the gun (not to mention causing the case to expand a little, necessitating the use of an extractor rod to remove the spent cases from the cylinder.

Anyway, I'm not sure I'm explaining this correctly, but that's what I think happens, and why the barrel deflects upwards. It would be great if someone who knows this much better than I would chime in.

Paul

 

[rct269]

Several really good points have been brought up here. The first is to the effect there is nothing worse than non-physicists discussing physics. Non-economists discussing economics might qualify, but like I said----a good point. Another was to the effect it has been a long time since the author has read a physics textbook. Amen!! As it happens, I have never read a physics textbook. I like to think I know something about physics, but will be quick to note I don't understand all I know-----or think I know. The very best, at least to lighten things up a bit, was the observation that slower bullets "definitely usually" hit higher.

Okay, the question: Is a firearm in recoil before the bullet leaves the barrel----has it moved because of recoil? I say no. Others say yes. Still others don't know, never thought about it, and don't care-----they just like to shoot. The reason I say yes arises from what I saw with my lying eyes perhaps 40-50 years ago. It was a series of photographs presented as emperical evidence by a gun magazine. The first showed the profile of the front end of a Model 94 Winchester rifle resting on a post. Another showed the same rifle resting on the same post----------and the bullet in the air. Another showed the rifle lifted above the post----and the bullet long gone. Like I said, emperical evidence----no theory, no physics, no voodoo.

I have seen similar photographs much more recently----on just about any of the several gun/shooting TV programs-----bullet in the air----no sign of any movement from recoil. That said, none of these later photos were presented to make THE point, and it could certainly be argued they don't make it. Then again, some of the photos show bullets in the air from autoloaders-----and the autoloaders have not yet begun to cycle.

So, here's the offer to the first of anyone who chooses to present emperical evidence to the contrary of my position. Show me the evidence. Demonstrate replication on request. Collect $1,000.

Finally, did you ever wonder why recoil is never mentioned by those who entertain and inform us (on TV) with discussion and demonstration of the art and science of the sniper? God knows almost everything else is treated----wind, humidity, air density, "spin drift" (???!!), etc., ad nauseam.

Ralph Tremaine

 

[bigmoose]

rct269,

Thanks for the informative post. It is hard to argue with empirical data, so I will recant previous opinion. But this does beg the question: Is there a bullet velocity threshold that below which recoil will have some effect on bullet path? Barrel length is also a consideration.

 

[rct269]

In theory at least, yes. Now, add the longer barrel into the mix, an you absolutely could have some effect----not counting the added mass of the longer barrel----which would probably be such that you'd have to mount the rig on wheels so you could drag it around with you. Then you have the question of whether or not the force creating the initial action has enough oomph (scientific word I just thought of) to come up with one of those equal and opposite reactions.

RT