User talk:Greg Glover/Archive 1 March 07

Black powder substitute
I just started this article. If you happen to know anything about them, have a look and see what you think. I'm quite a ways out of date, Black Canyon was the hot new thing last time I did anything with muzzleloaders or BP cartridges. scot 04:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * As far as I know, the newest entries in the BP substitute category is Hodgdon’s Triple Seven pellets, Pyrodex pellets and IMR Trail Boss (now owned by Hodgdon). My chemistry sucks so I can't tell one BP substitute from the other by the listed ingredients. Pyrodex is the industry standard for BP substitutes.


 * The pellets are what everyone seems to like. Just drop a couple down the muzzle (check the manual for your firearm first), then your patch and ball and wam, your good to go. Each pellet is pre-sized for both caliber and weight. Triple Seven pellets are for muzzloading rifles and Pyrodex pellets are for muzzloading pistols.


 * IMR Trail Boss is actual a smokeless pistol powder and works for rifles as well. This powder is designed as a smokeless powder substitute for old black powder metallic cartridges (25-35, 32-20, 38-40, 45-70 ect…). However reloading date covers many modern cartridges. The powder its self is fluffy and looks like little, white donuts. The new powder was designed for the “cowboy action” community. The powder is low energy so it will fill a case with greater volume to give a better load density. I have never used the stuff but it sounds like fun stuff. I understand the muzzle ejecta is slightly visible. I except the folks that load paper patch bullets will benefit the most from this powder.


 * This of course is what is happening here in the USA. I have no idea what the UK, South Africa or Australia has to offer.Greg Glover 22:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ping me in a couple of weeks if you think about it, and I'll do some research on the Trail Boss stuff. Maybe after I get moved I'll be able to do more shooting, and actually set up my reloading stuff--I'd really like to be able to do some playing around with heavy .45-70 bullets, both BP and smokeless loads.  The more I read about the .45-70, the more attatched to it I become.  scot 23:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite for Recoil versus Energy within the Recoil Article

 * I found it impossible to work with the current content within Recoil versus Energy. This is because there are only three paragraphs of classic statement and no comparative thoughts to recoil. I propose this rewrite for Recoil versus Energy.

Recoil is from the law of conservation of momentum. Energy is a quality of work that can be measured. When discussing recoil and energy it tends to be more understandable, if one thinks of them separately like a real life experience. Recoil generally conveys an action with an equal and opposite reaction as a topic for discussion. Energy and that energy specific to recoiling firearms conveys “kick” as in what a shooter feels.

In the vernacular the energy of a recoiling firearm is called: felt recoil; free recoil and recoil energy. Also this same energy for a projectile in motion is called: muzzle energy; bullet energy; remaining energy; down range energy and impact energy.

In mathematics recoil and the energy of a recoiling firearm are different as well. The recoil of a firearm, both large and small is a function of the law conservation of momentum and can be stated mathematically as: m•v = m•v from Newton’s third law. Essentially when looking at the equation m•v = m•v, it relates to the recoil of a firearm, gun-shooter or gun-mount system in its entirety. Which during the action of firing includes the powder charge mass and projectile at any position along the barrel. The terms within this equation are: the equal sign that represents the total thermodynamic energy held within the powder charge; m•v found on the left side of the equation represents the backwards motion of the firearm or firearm system; m•v found on the right of the equation represents the forward motion of the powder charge mass and projectile moving down the barrel, before either has left the barrel.

The energy of a recoiling firearm can be stated mathematically as: Et = ½•m•v2 from Newton’s second law. This equation is known as the “classic statement” and yields a measurement of force though distance called the joule (foot-pound force in non-SI units). The calculated energy will tell you the amount of work that can be done by the recoiling firearm, firearm system or a projectile because of their motion. When looking at the equation Et = ½•m•v2 the Et in energy represents the transitional kinetic energy of a recoiling firearm, firearm system or projectile’s motion after it exits the barrel. The m in the equation represents the mass of the firearm, firearm system or projectile. The v2 in the equation represents the square of the velocity for the firearm or firearm system in backwards motion and the projectile’s forward motion after it exits the barrel.

The demarcation between these two equations and events is this. During recoil (m•v = m•v) a projectile has not left the barrel. When calculating the energy of a recoiling firearm (Et = ½•m•v2) the projectile has exited the barrel. Again, recoil is a principal of the law of conservation of momentum and the energy of a recoiling firearm, firearm system or projectile is a quality of work and can be measured.

It can also be helpful to think of the energy of a recoiling firearm or firearm-system as a byproduct of work being done to accelerate a projectile towards its target.


 * Resources

Arthur B. Alphin, Any Shot You Want, The A-Square Handloading and Rifle Manual, On Target Press, 1996.

Edward F. Obert, Thermodynamics, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1948.

Mc Graw-Hill encyclopedia of Science and Technology, volume ice-lev, 9th Edition, Mc Graw-Hill, 2002.

Greg Glover 20:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Greg Glover 23:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of small issues--first the division of before/after the projectile leaves the barrel (the ejecta exit is a continuous process, to the extent that anything governed by quantum mechanics is continuous) and the second is the legitimacy of referencing yourself. But, since those are relativly minor issues, go ahead and make the changes, and I'll get back to them later.  I'm moved now, but it's still going to take some time to get things all settled down so I have time to edit again.  scot 17:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct that quantum mechanics governs anything that exits the muzzle. This is why recoil is different from energy or work. Energy or work by itself is a contained quantity that expresses the potential to effect an action; hence the title, recoil versus energy. I will remove my self as a reference, but you must understand that much of what I post here is pulled from my book and manuscript. Besides no one has given references except myself. Self-reference must account for something, don’t you think? I would be most appreciative if you could cut and paste this revision to the Recoil article.Greg Glover 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)