Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
.338 Caliber....Lots I dont understand
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="fmajor" data-source="post: 1265748" data-attributes="member: 20646"><p>There are a couple factors involved when comparing performance of a chambering while adding in the highly variable factor of (felt) recoil.</p><p></p><p>Simply quantifying the amount of energy of recoil is a fairly linear correlation to the ballistic characteristics of whatever we're shooting. </p><p></p><p>Like in your example, a 338 caliber bullet weighing 225 grs, going 2700 fps will generate X amount of kinetic energy (at any given distance) - regardless of the chambering that it was shot out of (in your example a 338-06 or a 338 Win mag). Lets say that load (a 338 caliber bullet weighing 225 grs, going 2700 fps) produced 3000 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle.</p><p></p><p>That 3000 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle will also produce the same amount of energy at the back end of the rifle - say from the bolt face all the way back to the butt stock.</p><p></p><p>The difference in the amount of energy transmitted to the end of the butt stock is affected by how much the whole rifle weighs and even to some extent the distance from the bolt face to the end of the butt stock.</p><p></p><p>Imagine a butt stock that was 5 feet long weighing 4lbs but was not very stiff - some of the recoil would be dissipated by the wiggly-ness of the butt stock. So, "felt" recoil may be considerably less than an equal weight, but rigid (so it must be shorter) butt stock which had no wiggly-ness to dissipate any of the recoil.</p><p></p><p>Also, if both stocks are rigid but rifle A has a butt stock is either above or below the direct line of the muzzle, the stock on rifle A will feel like it has less recoil.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="fmajor, post: 1265748, member: 20646"] There are a couple factors involved when comparing performance of a chambering while adding in the highly variable factor of (felt) recoil. Simply quantifying the amount of energy of recoil is a fairly linear correlation to the ballistic characteristics of whatever we're shooting. Like in your example, a 338 caliber bullet weighing 225 grs, going 2700 fps will generate X amount of kinetic energy (at any given distance) - regardless of the chambering that it was shot out of (in your example a 338-06 or a 338 Win mag). Lets say that load (a 338 caliber bullet weighing 225 grs, going 2700 fps) produced 3000 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle. That 3000 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle will also produce the same amount of energy at the back end of the rifle - say from the bolt face all the way back to the butt stock. The difference in the amount of energy transmitted to the end of the butt stock is affected by how much the whole rifle weighs and even to some extent the distance from the bolt face to the end of the butt stock. Imagine a butt stock that was 5 feet long weighing 4lbs but was not very stiff - some of the recoil would be dissipated by the wiggly-ness of the butt stock. So, "felt" recoil may be considerably less than an equal weight, but rigid (so it must be shorter) butt stock which had no wiggly-ness to dissipate any of the recoil. Also, if both stocks are rigid but rifle A has a butt stock is either above or below the direct line of the muzzle, the stock on rifle A will feel like it has less recoil. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
.338 Caliber....Lots I dont understand
Top