Ideal gun weight

[Stonepark]

1 hour ago, Lloyd90 said:

Shot our final mop up day at my syndicate today we did walked up / semi driven for a change. 
 

I took 6 birds for 6 shots, flushed by my own dog. 
 

The Eley Inpax 28g 7’s were bang on… seemed to do the job really well  

Sounds a great day, and a good example nothing wrong with 28g no7.

[ditchman]

On 30/01/2023 at 11:25, enfieldspares said:

The paper "grips" the chamber walls more than does the plastic so the back thrust is less (the reason that proof cartridges are oiled is to increase back thrust). Therefore they seem a "softer" cartridge to shoot. 

that sounds like a total load of tosh..............tell me otherwise

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, ditchman said:

that sounds like a total load of tosh..............tell me otherwise

I have to agree - whether the recoil from the cartridge is taken by the base against the standing breech - or the cartridge case against the chamber walls - it all ends up in the stock - and via that to the shoulder, face, hands etc that are the contact the shooter makes in supporting the gun and absorbing the recoil.

[enfieldspares]

Oiling cartridges? Not tosh at all. Then there's the debate over if shooting targets (at Bisley) in pouring wet rain as to if you tried to keep everything dry (and risked a cartridge fired wet spoiling your group) or went with the practice of actually dipping the cartridge in a pot of water (yes...really) before chambering and firing it so the group was "all wet" fired.

https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/lubed-chamber-huh.3992288/

Below in Britain a different crusher pressure method was developed and it is still used in a few proof houses today.

Cartridge Pressure Standards
http://kwk.us/pressures.html

In Britain, a third set of crusher standards were developed, using a "base" crusher. The crusher was a short, thick tube placed behind a piston at the base of the cartridge, and the firing pin passed through the center. The cartridge case was well oiled before firing, to minimize cling to the chamber walls (if not oiled, the indicated pressures were about 25% lower). 

Below from the 1929 British Textbook of Small Arms and proof testing the Enfield rifle. Two oiled proof cartridges were fired during proof testing and if the headspace increased .003 or more the rifle failed proof testing. To this day the British military still uses this proof testing method of two oiled proof cartridges. In the U.S. only one "dry" proof cartridge is used for proof testing to SAAMI standards.

Edited February 1, 2023 by enfieldspares

[enfieldspares]

Paper cartridges and less recoil? Perception is I suppose in the shooter's opinion. But many hold it true. Of course you could also say that once upon a time many held true that the earth was flat. So who knows!

https://shotgunreport.com/2019/07/05/paper-or-plastic-shells/

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, enfieldspares said:

Not tosh at all.

Below in Britain a different crusher pressure method was developed and it is still used in a few proof houses today.

I don't know the details of the crusher set up (and in particular where the actual crusher disc/part is located), so can't comment on that - but when actually shooting ALL of the recoil transfers into the stock (including a small amount via the forend) regardless of whether it is transferred via the chamber walls, standing breech or anywhere else.

[enfieldspares]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I don't know the details of the crusher set up (and in particular where the actual crusher disc/part is located), so can't comment on that - but when actually shooting ALL of the recoil transfers into the stock (including a small amount via the forend) regardless of whether it is transferred via the chamber walls, standing breech or anywhere else.

There are other views, yes, and other American writers where paper cases are still favoured by competition Skeet shooters (especially Federal paper Skeet shells) say it's all in the mind. 

[Old farrier]

13 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Paper cartridges and less recoil? Perception is I suppose in the shooter's opinion. But many hold it true. Of course you could also say that once upon a time many held true that the earth was flat. So who knows!

https://shotgunreport.com/2019/07/05/paper-or-plastic-shells/

Don’t think I said less recoil 

I did say there was a noticeable difference between the paper and the plastic cases though 

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, enfieldspares said:

There are other views, yes, and other American writers where paper cases are still favoured by competition Skeet shooters (especially Federal paper Skeet shells) say it's all in the mind. 

My 'engineers guess' is that the 'sharpness' of the way the recoil is delivered alters its 'apparent severity'.  In basics,

1. For a given shot load and powder load, there will be both shot ejected at high velocity from the muzzle (along with a cloud of hot gasses, a bit of a flash etc).  The necessary 'equal and opposite reaction is that the body of the gun is propelled backwards with the energy taken mainly in the shoulder.  Regardless of what the cartridge is made of or how it slides in the gun - the energy is the same.
2. In a plastic case in which then plastic is relatively thin and incompressible.  the majority of the energy from the cartridge will be delivered via the base to the standing breech virtually instantaneously.  In a paper case (which is thicker and has some compressibility) the same total energy is present, but some may be 'cushioned' (i.e delivered less sharply and over a slightly longer period) due to this cushioning.
3. The key point is that for any given load (and proof loads will be very precise) the total energy is the same - and the split between what goes into propelling the shot forwards - and what goes into propelling the gun backwards is essentially the same.
4. Recoil pads etc work by 'smearing' the sharp peak of the recoil into a longer duration push - which is less felt.  BUT the total energy must be the same

[ditchman]

the only way it would make any difference if there was massive head space........i believe the smle bolt can be adjusted (head space)......but shotguns cant (obviously)

still very scepticle............

[wymberley]

Somewhere along the line I've been lead to believe - possibly mistakenly - that the 'short sharp shove' gave less perceived recoil than the "longer duration push".

[Old farrier]

12 minutes ago, ditchman said:

the only way it would make any difference if there was massive head space........i believe the smle bolt can be adjusted (head space)......but shotguns cant (obviously)

still very scepticle............

Or the thicker paper case has a slightly smaller diameter wad 

letting some gases escape therefore causing the difference between the paper and plastic casing 

[JohnfromUK]

8 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Somewhere along the line I've been lead to believe - possibly mistakenly - that the 'short sharp shove' gave less perceived recoil than the "longer duration push".

I must admit, I thought it was the other way round!  I might be wrong though.  My reason for thinking that is that heavy guns will have a slower more spread out transfer of energy and the shooter will feel less recoil. 

What I do know is that;

1. the energy (which comes from the powder) is fixed
2. the energy going out with the charge (i.e. the 1 ounce of lead at xxxx ft per second) is fixed
3. the (equal and opposite) energy delivered as recoil is fixed
4. the way the recoil is delivered (short sharp 'shock' versus longer sustained 'push') will vary with gun weight, absorbency (recoil pad if any, clothes, shoulder), stock to shoulder fit and where on the body it impacts.

Edited February 1, 2023 by JohnfromUK

[wymberley]

9 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I must admit, I thought it was the other way round!  I might be wrong though.  My reason for thinking that is that heavy guns will have a slower more spread out transfer of energy and the shooter will feel less recoil. 

What I do know is that;

1. the energy (which comes from the powder) is fixed
2. the energy going out with the charge (i.e. the 1 ounce of lead at xxxx ft per second) is fixed
3. the (equal and opposite) energy delivered as recoil is fixed
4. the way the recoil is delivered (short sharp 'shock' versus longer sustained 'push' will vary with gun weight, absorbency (recoil pad if any, clothes, shoulder), stock to shoulder fit and where on the body it impacts.

Surely the only way the two recoil types can be compared is if the highlighted conditions are also fixed. I just go with the sticking plaster/hairs syndrome. 

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, wymberley said:

Surely the only way the two recoil types can be compared is if the highlighted conditions are also fixed.

Agreed .  If a comparison was being made between different case types - or case greased/dry - then ALL other things (powder, load, wad type, gun, clothes etc.) would need to be the same - and all done by the same individual.

[JohnfromUK]

5 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Surely the only way the two recoil types can be compared is if the highlighted conditions are also fixed. I just go with the sticking plaster/hairs syndrome. 

I suppose you could mount an accelerometer on the gun and view the trace on an oscilloscope.  You could do this with the gun mounted in a jig and a rubber 'shoulder simulator', but at the end of the day - what are you learning?  Ultimately, it is how it feels that matters.

Personally, I have never got hit on the fingers (which does affect some people hence the rubber pads sold) - and seldom suffer at the shoulder, but I can get a slightly bruised cheek with heavy loads in a light gun - or on a gun with a soft shoulder recoil absorbing pad (which presumably allows for movement at the comb as the pad compresses).

My real 'solution' is to ensure my guns fit and I use suitable cartridges, especially in the light guns.

[wymberley]

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I suppose you could mount an accelerometer on the gun and view the trace on an oscilloscope.  You could do this with the gun mounted in a jig and a rubber 'shoulder simulator', but at the end of the day - what are you learning?  Ultimately, it is how it feels that matters.

Personally, I have never got hit on the fingers (which does affect some people hence the rubber pads sold) - and seldom suffer at the shoulder, but I can get a slightly bruised cheek with heavy loads in a light gun - or on a gun with a soft shoulder recoil absorbing pad (which presumably allows for movement at the comb as the pad compresses).

My real 'solution' is to ensure my guns fit and I use suitable cartridges, especially in the light guns.

Re your final paragraph: why is it that when we finally reach that conclusion and we then realise how eminently sensible it is, how come it has taken most of a lifetime to understand it’s validity.

[JohnfromUK]

6 hours ago, wymberley said:

Re your final paragraph: why is it that when we finally reach that conclusion and we then realise how eminently sensible it is, how come it has taken most of a lifetime to understand it’s validity.

I could 'rant on' about various reasons for that, but one significant trend (in my opinion) has been to 'hotter' cartridges with branding like "super fast", "high bird extreme", etc. linked to the desire to push the range of shotguns out beyond what would a few years ago have been considered a 'practical limit'.

[Stonepark]

12 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

Oiling cartridges? Not tosh at all. Then there's the debate over if shooting targets (at Bisley) in pouring wet rain as to if you tried to keep everything dry (and risked a cartridge fired wet spoiling your group) or went with the practice of actually dipping the cartridge in a pot of water (yes...really) before chambering and firing it so the group was "all wet" fired.

https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/lubed-chamber-huh.3992288/

Below in Britain a different crusher pressure method was developed and it is still used in a few proof houses today.

Cartridge Pressure Standards
http://kwk.us/pressures.html

In Britain, a third set of crusher standards were developed, using a "base" crusher. The crusher was a short, thick tube placed behind a piston at the base of the cartridge, and the firing pin passed through the center. The cartridge case was well oiled before firing, to minimize cling to the chamber walls (if not oiled, the indicated pressures were about 25% lower). 

Below from the 1929 British Textbook of Small Arms and proof testing the Enfield rifle. Two oiled proof cartridges were fired during proof testing and if the headspace increased .003 or more the rifle failed proof testing. To this day the British military still uses this proof testing method of two oiled proof cartridges. In the U.S. only one "dry" proof cartridge is used for proof testing to SAAMI standards.

But we are not dealing with all brass cases that are effectively being fire formed to the final chamber and headspace size at 4x the pressure of a shotgun with bullet heads at the end of the case.

As all military chambering especially on older guns was sized to take all ammunition, the chamber  size and headspace ia all generally near maximum tolerance to prevent jamming, I would suggest a coating of oil allows the "grippy" brass (due to the copper in the alloy) to fire form to the chamber dimensions easier and more evenly giving a better seal and hence the higher pressure of oiled v's non oiled cartridges per your example.

Both brass and paper shotgun cartridge cases have inherently more flexibility than brass, fire forming at lower pressures to chamber dimensions and then shrinking back away again allowing easy extraction.

[Old Boggy]

On 26/01/2023 at 11:37, JohnfromUK said:

The Darne is another example of this.  It is light (my 12 weights around 6 lbs, but 16's are also common and are lighter) - but the weight is also very centralised.  This has been done by;

1. Short(ish) barrels, typically 27" and only a single rib (no lower rib)
2. No separate forend (like a muzzle loader)
3. Most weight is in the central sliding breech assembly
4. The stock tends to be on the slim side compared to most s/s guns

When picked up 'in the shop', the Darne feels lightning fast compared to most s/s guns.  It is lovely to carry on the arm.  The downside is that (and mine fits me reasonably well) it does kick, but also has noticeable barrel 'upward flip'.  I bought mine more out of interest (it was used and slightly 'abused' and was not expensive at all at the time) about 40 years ago and had it tidied up and 'fitted' in as much as is possible with a Darne (the way the stock is fitted means that once 'made', the 'hand' area cannot be bent).

My personal preference for weight (on a s/s) is around 6lbs 8 oz to 6 lbs 12 oz.  This is based on having owned several s/s and that just seems to feel 'right' for me.  Interestingly, one English gun I have at 6 lb 12oz feels as light or lighter than another (Spanish) gun that is 4 oz lighter.  Both are nice to use.

With regard to the Darne kicking excessively, could it be that the sliding breech gives no, or very little, head space between it and the cartridge and therefore recoil is felt more. Just a thought.

OB

[London Best]

3 minutes ago, Old Boggy said:

With regard to the Darne kicking excessively, could it be that the sliding breech gives no, or very little, head space between it and the cartridge and therefore recoil is felt more. Just a thought.

OB

The reverse is usually the case. Greater headspace will cause greater felt recoil.

[Old Boggy]

17 minutes ago, London Best said:

The reverse is usually the case. Greater headspace will cause greater felt recoil.

Yes, you’re probably right there. I did wonder.

[JohnfromUK]

21 minutes ago, Old Boggy said:

With regard to the Darne kicking excessively, could it be that the sliding breech gives no, or very little, head space between it and the cartridge and therefore recoil is felt more.

It is true that there will be very little headspace, however;

17 minutes ago, London Best said:

The reverse is usually the case. Greater headspace will cause greater felt recoil.

is also I believe true.

The main reason (in my opinion) that the Darne does have (a reputation for) high recoil is that they are typically very light, but capable of shooting high loads (French triple proof) and the very light barrels do tend to cause an upward 'flip' movement, which I think may increase the perceived recoil.

[oldypigeonpopper]

On 30/01/2023 at 11:25, enfieldspares said:

The paper "grips" the chamber walls more than does the plastic so the back thrust is less (the reason that proof cartridges are oiled is to increase back thrust). Therefore they seem a "softer" cartridge to shoot. 

Hello, that's interesting, the impacts was all I used going back many many years when I used AYA yeoman and No 3, the paper ones did sometimes cling in the chamber but never had that with plastic cases, saying this the chambers did need a good polish as not as smoothly made as English guns, although the AYA were better made than many cheaper Spanish shotguns, the AYA No 4 had good ejectors and after the chamber polish the impax were no problem

[enfieldspares]

6 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I could 'rant on' about various reasons for that, but one significant trend (in my opinion) has been to 'hotter' cartridges with branding like "super fast", "high bird extreme", etc. linked to the desire to push the range of shotguns out beyond what would a few years ago have been considered a 'practical limit'.

A trend, I fear, much encouraged by the You Tube offerings of some...and IMHO an unwelcome trend. Even clay pigeon cartridges are seeing this fast trend. I tried some Fiocchi Lite Speed (the fibre wad version) in my son's gun a side by side Gunmark Viscount weighing about 6lbs 12ozs. It is the only time, with any gun, I have ever hit the back of the front trigger with the front of my trigger finger when firing the second barrel with the rear trigger.

https://www.clay-shooting.com/reviews/fiocchi-litespeed-cartridge-review-with-richard-atkins/

Edited February 2, 2023 by enfieldspares