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
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
30 378 weatherby
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="J E Custom" data-source="post: 1847799" data-attributes="member: 2736"><p>As I said earlier, we tried as many programs as we could find to get a base line for our test bed and couldn't find any that agreed with each other. so we ended up using spring rates at distance traveled and weighed each spring and the load it took to move it at any distance. we also had to add the effect of momentum and inertia to the set up. The electronic load cell was one of the tools we compared out recoil tester against, and found that even the load cell had a 4% average error (Different reading shot to shot). the downside to the load cell was it,s ability to respond to the speed of load presented to it consistently.</p><p></p><p>Our search for more information also led us to Hatcher's note book for the testing he did for over many decades. He had recoil values based on millions of our tax payer dollars for equipment and had all the recoil values for the military weapons so we use his information on the 30/06 Springfield as a base line In the same model of rifle he used to test with. Once armed with this information we compared his calculations and test numbers. with our actual numbers and found them to be less than One ft/lb more that his and with a one pound preload on the machine to return it to battery, It was almost identical to his test numbers.</p><p></p><p>So now with all the data we have generated, we can use the data to predict the actual recoil and when we test the rifle, It agrees with the numbers we can generate off our data. We still run actual test to verify actual recoil and regularly test the machine to re verify it's accuracy. The real advantage to testing this way has been the ability to measure subtle changes in the design differences proving that some changes are counter productive, while other changes have improved performance.</p><p></p><p>We also ran many test to try and alter the sound signature of the muzzle brake (The part that most people object to) Without effecting efficiency and did find ways to reduce the sound somewhat, but could never reduce it enough to make it safe to un-protected ears. </p><p></p><p>Sorry for the long winded explanation, but it was necessary to explain the difference in calculated numbers and actual/real recoil numbers. And I agree with your fear of your wife If she can handle 35 to 40 ft/lbs of recoil. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />. Most people can handle the recoil of a 30/06 but beyond that, the numbers go down.</p><p></p><p>J E CUSTOM</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="J E Custom, post: 1847799, member: 2736"] As I said earlier, we tried as many programs as we could find to get a base line for our test bed and couldn't find any that agreed with each other. so we ended up using spring rates at distance traveled and weighed each spring and the load it took to move it at any distance. we also had to add the effect of momentum and inertia to the set up. The electronic load cell was one of the tools we compared out recoil tester against, and found that even the load cell had a 4% average error (Different reading shot to shot). the downside to the load cell was it,s ability to respond to the speed of load presented to it consistently. Our search for more information also led us to Hatcher's note book for the testing he did for over many decades. He had recoil values based on millions of our tax payer dollars for equipment and had all the recoil values for the military weapons so we use his information on the 30/06 Springfield as a base line In the same model of rifle he used to test with. Once armed with this information we compared his calculations and test numbers. with our actual numbers and found them to be less than One ft/lb more that his and with a one pound preload on the machine to return it to battery, It was almost identical to his test numbers. So now with all the data we have generated, we can use the data to predict the actual recoil and when we test the rifle, It agrees with the numbers we can generate off our data. We still run actual test to verify actual recoil and regularly test the machine to re verify it's accuracy. The real advantage to testing this way has been the ability to measure subtle changes in the design differences proving that some changes are counter productive, while other changes have improved performance. We also ran many test to try and alter the sound signature of the muzzle brake (The part that most people object to) Without effecting efficiency and did find ways to reduce the sound somewhat, but could never reduce it enough to make it safe to un-protected ears. Sorry for the long winded explanation, but it was necessary to explain the difference in calculated numbers and actual/real recoil numbers. And I agree with your fear of your wife If she can handle 35 to 40 ft/lbs of recoil. :). Most people can handle the recoil of a 30/06 but beyond that, the numbers go down. J E CUSTOM [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
30 378 weatherby
Top