I would like to see what my Uncles' 416 Remington Magnum recoil signature would look like on this
accelerometer.....! LOL!
Moderator: MudBug
gunnut wrote:The same effect. The A1 & A2 Recoilless stocks weigh the same. The A2 has 2 cavities, The A1 has 1 but, is 5/8" shorter.
gunnut wrote:No. Only (1) 7/8" x 5" in the A1 Recoil-Less. 1" Dia. upon request.
bushmeister wrote:Gunnut, I've been thinking alot about the claims of "felt recoil". Obviously, muzzle breaks and your recoil-less stock reduces actual recoil as proven by your graphs and witnessed and experienced by myself and catter. I think we all can agree that one could conclude that less actual recoil = less "felt" recoil. Products such as the limbsaver (which I am also a fan of) have claims to reduce "felt" recoil but not actual recoil, which your graph shows it actually does contribute some. I guess what I am getting to, is that "felt" recoil should be measureable by A. putting an accelerometer on your shoulder instead of the rifle (which adds a slight human variable) or B. Use of a load cell between the stock and the lead sled to measure actual force transferred from the rifle to the shooter. I don't know if that type of technology is available or feasible, but it would seem to be a good way to evaluate claims of "felt" recoil. Not to mention a good excuse to get out to the range again! Thoughts?
gunnut wrote:[I think we could mount one on the gun and one on the shooter and compare the two reading. Maybe use a shoulder holster or embed one in ballistic jell.
The old question was, What's the difference in calculated and felt recoil? Now it's become, What's the difference in Actual compared to felt.
I'm all Ears people!
Civil wrote:Put a brake on it
[ http://home.comcast.net/~civil_pe/CIMG2090.JPG ]
[ http://home.comcast.net/~civil_pe/CIMG2091.JPG ]
[ http://home.comcast.net/~civil_pe/CIMG2092.JPG ]
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests