This topic is the age old discussion that is ongoing in most IDPA and USPSA clubs. The first time some one told me a heavier bullet has less recoil, I though they were nuts. After all Newton’s Third Law tells me that:
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Logic would dictate if you increase the weight of the bullet the recoil would also be increased. Thus a heavier bullet should have a heavier recoil, conversely a lighter bullet would have a lighter recoil. One thing that is often overlooked in the concept of a “heavier bullet has a lighter recoil” is the fact that part of the statement is left out; as I found through some basic research.
I started my research by looking up the mechanical physics concepts for both of the measurable elements. The measurable elements, in this case, are the Recoil (Newton’s Third Law) and the Power Factor (Momentum)
Newton’s Third Law
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs – equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.
via Physics in the classroom.
Momentum
In classical mechanics, momentum is the product of the mass and velocity of an object (p = mv). It is sometimes referred to as linear momentum to distinguish it from the related subject of angular momentum. Linear momentum is a vector quantity, since it has a direction as well as a magnitude.
via Momentum – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Measuring Recoil
In this case, to measure the recoil, I am relying on the fact that Newton’s Third Law is correct, and the hypothesis that the muzzle energy of a bullet (the force at which the bullet is traveling away from the gun) will translate into recoil acting on the gun.
For example a 124 grain bullet traveling 1008.6 feet per second (FPS) has a muzzle energy of 280.04 foot pounds (Ft-Lbs). Multiply the product of the weight of the bullet (in grains) times the velocity squared and divide by two times the acceleration of gravity (32.174 FPS) times 7,000 grains per pound.
- (124 * (1 008.1^2)) / (2 * 32.17400 * 7 000) = 279.766572
Measuring Momentum
To measure the momentum of the bullet I simply used the IDPA formula for determining power factor which is identical to the momentum formula for physics. For example the Power Factor of a 124 grain bullet traveling at 1008.6 FPS is 125,066.
- 124 * 1,008.1 = 125,004.4
Putting it All Together
If I take the formulas and concepts above and do some quick calculating using a 124 grain 9mm vs. a 147 grain 9mm bullet, both at a 125,000 power factor (PF) I find the following:
Velocity required to make 125,000 PF
124 grain bullet = 1008.1 FPS
- 125,000 / 124 = 1 008.06452
147 grain bullet = 850.3 FPS
- 125 000 / 147 = 850.340136
Muzzle Energy at 125,000 PF
124 grain bullet = 280.04 Ft-Lbs
- (124 * (1,008.1^2)) / (2 * 32.17400 * 7 000) = 279.766572
147 grain bullet = 235.95 Ft-Lbs
- (147 * (850.3^2)) / (2 * 32.17400 * 7 000) =235.954682
So how is it all possible? How is it that the heavier bullet has 45 foot pounds less recoil? The answer lies in the mathematics used to calculate each factor. While Energy increases exponentially as the velocity increases the Power Factor only increases linearly. Thus by increasing the bullet weight and lowering the velocity to meet the power factor, the energy is exponentially reducing from the drop in velocity, while the power factor remains constant. So next time you hear “Heavier bullets have less recoil” make sure you correct the statement to its true form: “Heavier bullets have less recoil, if the power factor is held constant.”
Related posts
Safariland Comp-3 Speedloaders (0)
You guns belong on foreign battlefields… (0)
Heller yeah… (0)
Choosing a New Gun Part 3 (0)
Choosing a New Gun Part 2 (0)
Communist California LEO arrested this guy for transporting an assault weapon he had paperwork for…
So this begs the question: If you legally own an assult style weapon, and you have the proper paperwork are you not allowed to move the weapon to use it?
Also if I have to hear in a “Post 9/11 world” one more time I am going to kick someones butt.
Man with guns at airport says he’s law-abidingSunday, January 11, 2009LOS ANGELES The man arrested at Los Angeles International Airport with a trunk full of guns and nearly 1,000 rounds of ammunition said Saturday that he is a law-abiding weapons enthusiast who had no idea he might be breaking the law.
A day after he was arrested for suspicion of felony transportation of an assault rifle, Phillip Dominguez said he’s confident he’ll be exonerated.
“I’m a law-abiding, taxpaying gun enthusiast. I have no felonies up until now,” Dominguez said.
Airport police saw it a little differently.
“In the post-Sept. 11 (2001) environment, it is well-known by weapon owners that airports and weapons simply do not mix,” said Los Angeles Airport Police Chief George Centeno.
“He just made a very bad decision, and should not have been carrying those weapons,” airport police Sgt. Jim Holcomb said on Friday. A call to an airport police spokesman seeking further comment Saturday was not immediately returned.
Dominguez, 47, of Orange, said he went to the Los Angeles airport to pick up a friend from Baltimore on Friday. They intended to go target shooting at an outdoor range in San Bernardino County.
As Dominguez entered the airport’s ring road, his truck was pulled over for inspection. Dominguez says he knew police would want to look inside the locked cover of the truck bed so he got out, opened it and declared that he had firearms there.
Dominguez said he had 16 pistols, including an 1858 black-powder Army revolver. He also had five rifles one of them an assault rifle and nearly 1,000 rounds of ammunition.
Dominguez said he didn’t think he was breaking any laws since all the weapons and ammunition were in separate, locked boxes. At least half a dozen times since Thanksgiving, Dominguez said he made similar stops at the airport carrying his guns and never saw a police checkpoint.
He showed officials the paperwork proving the assault rifle was registered and gave them the keys and combinations of all the lockboxes, he said.
Dominguez said he was handcuffed, taken to a jail, and held for six hours before he was booked. He was released after his family posted $50,000 bail. But his guns and his truck were confiscated.
He faces a Feb. 6 arraignment.
Dominguez, who owns a construction company - as well as about 80 guns – says he doesn’t blame airport authorities for stopping his truck for inspection. But he believes security should be looking for ex-felons and bank robbers. And he intends to fight.
“I’m contacting their worst nightmare - an attorney,” he said.
Dominguez’ laywer, Bruce Colodny, said it’s true that carrying weapons at airports is a sensitive subject but “there’s nothing sinister about this. Despite the fact they’re controversial, assault weapons continue to be lawfully possessed.”
Related posts
Assault Weapons Ban Confusion (0)
Man arrested carrying weapons at hotel where Speaker Pelosi was staying. (0)
Assault Weapons Education (1)
The 5th Amendment rights vs. police investigations (0)
Positive Gun Story… (0)
The folks from ammunition accountability are at it again this year. Although this piece of legislation keeps dying every time it is proposed, they are trying again. There tag line of saving lives one bullet at a time is comical at best. The system has many conceptual problems, including increasing the manufacturing cost of ammunition, as well as local, state and federal agency administrative cost. The thought that one could track a criminal through a registered bullet is a little far fetched.
What makes one think if criminals steal guns, and deface serial numbers on guns, they will not do the same for ammunition?
From WND:
Group asks states to track citizens’ ammo
Organization claims it is ’saving lives 1 bullet at a time’
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008 WorldNetDailyLegislation to trace ammunition is pending in several states, and many gun owners are concerned that it is just another attempt by anti-gun groups to violate citizens’ Second Amendment rights.An organization known as Ammunition Accountability is pushing to make coding technology mandatory across the nation. Its website claims it is a group of “gun crime victims, industry representatives, law enforcement, public officials, public policy experts, and more” who are “saving lives one bullet at a time.”
If states pass the legislation, manufacturers will be required to laser etch a serial number into the back of each bullet and the inside of cartridge casings, a patented process developed by Seattle, Wash., resident Russ Ford and his business partners, Steve Mace and John Knickerbocker.
According to Seattle Weekly, the men couldn’t find an ammunition manufacturer to agree to stamp bullets, so they hired a lobbyist to push for state legislation to require the laser coding. They launched the Ammunition Accountability website and successfully introduced bills in the following 18 states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and Washington.
Related posts
Assault Weapons Ban Confusion (0)
Heller yeah… (0)
California attempts to create another felon (0)
Assault Weapons Ban…Loonacy (1)
Another one Bites the Dust (0)
The NSSF has put together a great fact sheet on Assault Weapons. The fact sheet debunks many of the liberal myths that have been floating around since the 1990s.
Attention liberals…find a friend that can read this to you. You may learn something.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON SO-CALLED ‘ASSAULT WEAPONS’
What has erroneously been termed an “assault weapon” is a semi-automatic firearm that fires just one bullet with each pull of the trigger (versus a fully automatic firearm — machine gun -
- which continues to shoot until the trigger is released). Specifically, legislation has incorrectly defined an “assault weapon” as a semi-automatic firearm that can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following cosmetic features (it is these cosmetic features that distinguish the firearm from other “non-assault weapons.”):
• A folding or telescoping stock
• A pistol grip
• A bayonet mount
• A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
• A grenade launcherNone of these features figure into the criminal misuse of firearms, regardless of their appearance.
SEPARATING FACT FROM FICTION
There is a tremendous amount of misinformation surrounding the issue of so-called “assault weapons.” Below are several of the more misleading allegations related to these firearms followed by corresponding statements of fact:
Claim: A commercially-sold “assault weapon” is a machine gun and has no place in civilian hands.
Fact: A so-called “assault weapon” is NOT a machine gun or automatic firearm. Automatic firearms were severely restricted from civilian ownership under the 1934 National Firearms Act. A so-called “assault weapon” is functionally no different than any other “legal” firearm. These guns fire in the same manner as any other semi-automatic firearm (one shot per trigger pull – no spray firing), they shoot the same ammunition as other guns of the same caliber and are no more powerful. What differentiates a so-called “assault weapon” from other guns is cosmetic; for example, the type of stock on the gun, which makes the conventionally operating firearm look more like a military firearm.
The gun-ban lobby understands that the confusion over what is and what is not an “assault weapon” only benefits them. Consider this statement from Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center:
“The public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is presumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”
Claim: Semi-automatic “assault weapons” are high-powered guns that are meant for war.
Fact: So-called “Assault weapons” are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term “assault weapon” was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie. These guns are used for many activities. In fact, the Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled “assault weapons,” are the rifles most often used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer.
Claim: The 1994 “assault weapons ban” helped to reduce violent crime.
Fact: A recent comprehensive study by the Centers for Disease Control — hardly a pro-gun entity — looked at the full panoply of gun control measures — including the “assault weapons ban” — and concluded that none could be proven to reduce crime. Homicide statistics demonstrate that the miniscule use of so-called “assault weapons” in crime (less than 1 percent) continued to decrease after the ten-year ban expired in 2004 and their manufacturing and sales resumed.
Another study, commissioned by Congress, found “the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.”
The report also noted that so-called “assault weapons” were “rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”
Conclusion:
Crime control legislation should be based upon solid facts, not emotions, cosmetics or appearance. Semi-automatic firearms are now the most popular type of firearm in America and are used for a wide variety of legitimate sporting purposes, including hunting, small game control, target shooting and personal defense. They should not be banned.
Related posts
Assault Weapons Ban Confusion (0)
About (0)
California attempts to create another felon (0)
The 5th Amendment rights vs. police investigations (0)
Man arrested carrying weapons at hotel where Speaker Pelosi was staying. (0)
Reading Obama’s regurgitated tripe on gun control drives me nuts. His mission is to enact the Assault Weapons Ban permanently in an effort to “protect the children.” Citing that Assault Weapons belong on foreign battlefields not in our streets. I am certain Obama and the rest of the Liberal Democrats will not stop with one ban, but rather will try to ban CHL/CCW, ammunition and other items.
I wonder if the people in this picture wished they had not been subjected to gun registration and gun control. I can really see the Liberal logic in the concept of total gun control safeguarding the children. I am sure the mothers in this picture are not the least bit worried.
Related posts
I did not think I would live long enough to see the day… (0)
Choosing a New Gun Part 3 (0)
Choosing a New Gun Part 2 (0)
Choosing a New Gun Part 1 (0)
Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Obama administration will seek to reinstitute the assault weapons ban (2)
