Shamelessly stolen from @[email protected]
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
363 points (95.5% liked)
memes
8603 readers
2211 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Above PugJesus talks about the energy of the round being very large. There's more to it.
The derringer design lacks any technology to absorb and extend the impulse of recoil, most importantly the slide found on any modern semi automatic.
Not only is there extreme recoil, there's also absolutely nothing to help the shooter deal with it.
Does the slide absorb any significant amount of energy?
The spring can't be all that strong since they can be assembled by hand, and what does the slide weigh? (Granted the slide is being accelerated, so I assume that's where the bulk of energy is dissipated, MV^2 and all).
What's the math on this, say the dissipated energy in a semi auto VS revolver using the same round?
(Really I'm curious what the numbers are, as I've read this many times but have no idea what the comparison is like).
Remember conservation of momentum. The only way the machine can absorb part of the impulse is through friction, heat, and by redirecting the existing chamber pressure after the bullet has left the barrel.
Remember the human body. Magnitude matters much more than duration. Extending the time of impulse by implementing a slide lessens magnitude, the areas under the impulse curves roughly equivalent.
I'm going to apply the above to answer your questions to say it again :)
For a properly functioning, modern, and typically-designed pistol and a status quo definition of "significant", the answer is: No. That's not what it's designed to do. But, energy can be dissipated slightly if the pistol is compensated: a redirection of chamber pressure from near the end of the barrel, upwards, counter the torque component of the recoil impulse.
It's not quite a good question. The maximum force during the impulse is what a human cares about when analyzing a slide. That's what'll effect accuracy of the next round and how sore your hands will be in the morning.
If minimization of total impulse is what's being analyzed then one would want to compare rifles. Rifles have larger rounds, longer barrel length thus more time to use chamber pressure to mitigate recoil.
You've good questions for coming into the middle. Go to the beginning: rounds and various types of actions, rifleman 101. Come back to the hard science.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I've heard many times that revolvers or semi-auto have less recoil than the other, hence the question about slide mass/energy, as the only element I could see being different which could possibly explain why people hold this opinion.
Do you know of any actual metrics/tests done that show this clearly? Or is it just a perception issue?
(And yea, we'd have to agree on a definition of what we're measuring/comparing). Do any gun magazines run proper tests occasionally to make comparisons?
I admit my physics classes were a long time ago, but at first glance it seems felt recoil would only be marginally different between a revolver and a pistol using the same round. If anything, I'd expect the revolver to have a greater felt recoil, given the mechanics of a pistol... But I could very well be wrong.