Remember me saying the G22 had about 50% more recoil than the G17, well.... - Page 2

Remember me saying the G22 had about 50% more recoil than the G17, well....

This is a discussion on Remember me saying the G22 had about 50% more recoil than the G17, well.... within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; One thing is that all things being equal, yes. However, I can load a full house 240 weight bullet at magnum velocities, and jump up ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 50
Like Tree12Likes

Thread: Remember me saying the G22 had about 50% more recoil than the G17, well....

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    9,499
    One thing is that all things being equal, yes. However, I can load a full house 240 weight bullet at magnum velocities, and jump up to a 314 weight bullet, and notice very little difference in percieved recoil.

    Additionally, the different powders used in the case will have different burn characteristics, and therefore different recoil characteristics that can be felt. On top of that, the powder allowance, assuming the same powder is used for both the heavier and lighter bullet will be different.

    And, another thing I have noticed, is that in the mid size guns, the recoil impulse of the 9mm and 40s&w are not as distinguishable as they are with the full size guns.

    Of course, there are other variables in play here.
    But as a whole, I agree that all things being equal, such as platform, and velocity, the heavier bullet will exhibit more recoil.
    The only issue is that it is pretty much impossible to achieve the same velocity with the heavy as you do with the light and stay within pressure perimeters of the cartridge.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.


  2. #17
    Member Array Eaglebeak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Republic Of Texas
    Posts
    367
    Tangle, you misunderstood my last paragraph. What you said is actual fact, and I fully agree with it. Ratios of bullet weight and firearm weight (with the same powder charge) are most certainly relative to recoil force.

    It was MY lengthy babble that really said nothing conslusive - not yours

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,801
    I'm definitely out my league here.

    The guns weigh about the same. The heavier bullet produced 50% more recoil, does that mean 50% more on the other end?
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    Maybe so,but what is the length of the muzzle flash at 10 o'clock at night
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  5. #20
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,869
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    One thing is that all things being equal, yes. However, I can load a full house 240 weight bullet at magnum velocities, and jump up to a 314 weight bullet, and notice very little difference in percieved recoil.
    Did they have the same energy levels? That makes a difference. The rule of thumb formula I posted takes energy in to account. If the energy is not the same between the two bullets we can actually get more recoil energy from a lighter bullet than a heavier one. It depends on bullet weight, bullet energy, and gun weight - assuming slide action to basically be a wash, or in the case of a revo, a non-issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    ...Additionally, the different powders used in the case will have different burn characteristics, and therefore different recoil characteristics that can be felt. On top of that, the powder allowance, assuming the same powder is used for both the heavier and lighter bullet will be different.
    Powders do have different burn characteristics, but that's commonly the rate of burn. It would be difficult to imagine that one powder burns at one rate for a while and then burns at another rate for a while where another powder exhibited a completely different profile.

    But the bottom line is however the powder burns may reflect how the recoil feels, and our feelers aren't all that accurate to start with, but it still takes more force to push a heavier bullet than a lighter one bullet down the barrel. Boy this is gonna get technical.

    Momentum is the bullet mass times the bullet velocity. A .40 cal 180 gn bullet moving at 1000 fps has an energy of 400 ft-lbs. A 9mm 115 gn bullet moving at 1252 fps has an energy of 400 ft-lbs. So the energy is the same. But the momentum of the .40 cal 180 gn bullet is .799 lb-sec. The momentum of the 115 gn bullet is .639 lb-sec. The 180 gn bullet has 25% more momentum than the 115 gn bullet. Wow, I said all that to say this.

    There's an equation that says:

    mass_1 x velocity_1 = mass_2 x velocity_2

    How this applies is the momentum of the bullet has to equal the momentum of the gun and hand, maybe even arm. But the gun, hand, arm is the same for both bullets. Hence the momentum of the heavier bullet causes a greater momentum on the gun, hand, and arm than the lighter bullet. Hence more recoil. It doesn't matter whether we can feel it or not, it's still there.

    The powder difference is what controls the acceleration of the bullet, not the recoil. It is the push of the powder against the bullet that creates a force against the gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    ...Of course, there are other variables in play here.
    But as a whole, I agree that all things being equal, such as platform, and velocity, the heavier bullet will exhibit more recoil.
    The only issue is that it is pretty much impossible to achieve the same velocity with the heavy as you do with the light and stay within pressure perimeters of the cartridge.
    The velocity of a heavier bullet must be less than the velocity of a lighter bullet to have the same energy. Note the .40 cal 180 is only going 1000 fps where the 115 gn is going 1252 fps, yet they both have the same energy.

    But we can calculate relative recoil from the bullet weight, bullet energy and gun weight. So we can compare bullets of difference weights and different energy levels and get an approximation of which one would have more recoil energy.

    Now my head hurts!
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  6. #21
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Eaglebeak View Post
    Tangle, you misunderstood my last paragraph. What you said is actual fact, and I fully agree with it. Ratios of bullet weight and firearm weight (with the same powder charge) are most certainly relative to recoil force.

    It was MY lengthy babble that really said nothing conslusive - not yours
    I'm sorry man, my bad, I misread you - again
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  7. #22
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,869
    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    I'm definitely out my league here.

    The guns weigh about the same. The heavier bullet produced 50% more recoil, does that mean 50% more on the other end?
    Yes! Well, not 50% more 'recoil' energy, but the heavier bullet with the same energy of a lighter bullet has more momentum - on the other end - not 50% more though.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  8. #23
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    When some guy is bearing down on you with a knife or firearm or other melee weapon, recoil will be the last thing on your mind. Shoot what you like, like what you shoot.

  9. #24
    Distinguished Member Array Fitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    So. Central PA
    Posts
    1,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Tangle View Post
    Years ago I asked a fellow shooter that happened to be a physicist to calculate the recoil force of a gun based on bullet mass, bullet energy and weight of the gun. Well what I didn't tell him was that I would be working on the same problem from a engineering perspective.

    He used an entirely different approach than I did. I nor he at no time knew how the other was approaching the problem. When he emailed me his solution I compared it to mine - the formula was exactly the same! Exactly!

    The constraints:
    1- Neither of us took the reciprocation of the slide into account; unquestionably valid for revolvers since they have no slides. And, I'm not sure the slide reciprocation would make much difference, but even if it did, if we are comparing semi-to semi, i.e. a G22 to a G17 the slide effects would be a wash anyway.

    2- Resistance between the bullet and the barrel was not included. Could make some difference but how would you ever determine what the friction was?

    The formula for recoil force we both came up with using different approaches is:

    Er = Mb * Eb / Mg

    where,

    Er = recoil energy
    Mb = bullet mass
    Eb = bullet muzzle energy
    Mg = mass of the gun

    Realizing that mass is proportional to weight and that in the formula the mass of the bullet and the mass of the gun is expressed as a ratio, the formula can be simplified to:

    Fr = Wb * Eb / Wg

    where,

    Wb is the weight, instead of mass, of the bullet in pounds, i.e. bullet grains divided by 7000
    Wg is the weight of the gun in lbs.

    Here's an example
    A Federal .40 cal 180 gn vs a Federal 9mm 115 gn bullet. One fired from a G22, the other from a G17

    The weight of the guns:
    G22 = 22.9 oz or 1.43 lbs
    G17 = 22 oz or 1.357 lbs

    the .40:
    muzzle energy = 400 ft-lbs
    bullet weight = 180 / 7000 = 0.0257 lbs

    the 9mm
    muzzle energy = This is a bit problematic, the specific spec says 356 ft-lbs, the chart says 400 ft-lbs, let's use 400.
    bullet weight = 115 / 7000 = 0.0164 lbs

    Fr(40) = 0.0257 lbs * 400 ft-lbs / 1.43 lbs = 7.18 lbs

    Er(9mm) = 0.0164 lbs * 400 ft-lbs / 1.357 lbs = 4.83 lbs

    % difference = ( (7.18 - 4.83) / 4.83) * 100% = 48.7%

    Interestingly, simply assuming the two bullets to have the same energy, dividing 180 by 115 gives 1.56 which would represent a 56% increase in recoil. However there is a significant difference in the weight of the G22 and G17 and that's why the formula gave a lower percentage.

    This is theoretical, but the bullet weights happened to be the very ones I was shooting when I perceived felt recoil to be about 50% more and I had no idea about the math at the time, I was simply going by feel.

    And, the M1V1 = M2V2 relationship suggests that a 20 oz slide could move 0.2" by the time the bullet exits the barrel. That assumes a motionless frame and that the slide unlocks immediately.
    Thanks for doing that. I enjoyed reading your analysis. After reading it, I took a look at how the SW I have does it and I think you are missing a couple, well three actually, factors that contribute to recoil, but that they end up not mattering as long as you are considering the relationship between 9mm and .40 S&W.

    First, the mass of the powder is being accelerated and should be included. That is left out in your model. I realize it's only a few grains, so you may have decided it's negligable, but it wasn't addressed and it's more for the .40 than the 9mm. I think for pistol cartridges, it probably doesn't matter, but for rifle cartridges it does.

    Second, there is a big difference in felt recoil between a loaded magazine and the last shot with an empty magazine. In fact, as it turns out, a 9mm with an empty magazine will feel about like a .40 with a full magazine.

    Second, there is the acceleration of the bullet which you have accounted for, but the rocket engine effect of the gasses following the exit of the bullet will produce additional thrust. In a rifle this is a significant contributor to recoil. Muzzle brakes take advantage of this exit gas by deflecting it to decelerate the rifle and reduce recoil. It will add about 25% to the total recoil in a 9mm.

    There are a lot of assumptions that need to be made in dealing with the above two factors. In my case I use the recoil energy calculated using QuickLoad with takes into account these two factors. QuickLoad doesn't account for the slide or type of action. It's more accurate for a rifle or revolver, or single shot pistol, but it's what I have.

    For a Glock 19 with 115g bullet exiting at 1240 fps, fully loaded magazine (i.e. the first shot) will have a total recoil of 4.98 ft/lbs including all factors. The last shot fired would have a total recoil of 6.77 ft-lbs. Same gun, 147g bullet, full magazine 5.1 ft-lbs, empty magazine (last shot) 6.94 ft-lb. Not a lot of difference but it may feel different.

    I did a quick look at the matching gun in .40 caliber (Glock 23). I don't own a .40 and don't reload for it so I just modeled a 180g bullet at around 1,030 fps. Full magazine result was 7.39 ft-lb, empty magazine result was 10.86 ft-lb.

    Comparing the 9mm 6.77 ft-lb to the S&W .40 10.86 ft-lb the .40 shooting a 180g bullet has about 160% of the recoil of a 9mm shooting a 115g bullet.

    Bottom line, based on my independent approach neglecting the dynamics of the action, your initial hypothesis of about 50% more recoil holds up even if the other factors are taken into account.

    I know from personal experience, the action type does matter. My Walther PPK/S which is a blow back action has a lot more felt recoil than my SIG P238 which has an action much like a 1911. The difference is really noticable. I'm pretty sure that could be modeled in a FEM dynamic model of the different guns but that's way beyond anything I can do.

    Fitch
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” by H. L. Mencken

  10. #25
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Fitch View Post
    ...First, the mass of the powder is being accelerated and should be included. That is left out in your model. I realize it's only a few grains, so you may have decided it's negligable, but it wasn't addressed and it's more for the .40 than the 9mm. I think for pistol cartridges, it probably doesn't matter, but for rifle cartridges it does.
    Well, the thread is specifically about handguns so I'll address those issues. The acceleration of the powder can be no more than the bullet itself or the powder would have to somehow pass the bullet. And even two grains of powder compared to a 115 gn bullet is still better than 2% accuracy by not including the powder weight.

    I was looking more for a quick rule of thumb and relative comparison rather than absolute numbers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fitch View Post
    ...Second, there is a big difference in felt recoil between a loaded magazine and the last shot with an empty magazine. In fact, as it turns out, a 9mm with an empty magazine will feel about like a .40 with a full magazine.
    True perhaps but the weight of the mag can simply be added to the empty weight of the gun. But I presumed by weight of the gun it would be the weight as fired. Still the thread is about the comparison of a heavier bullet to a lighter bullet, not felt recoil. The point being that recoil has to be absorbed whether we feel it or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fitch View Post
    ...Second, there is the acceleration of the bullet which you have accounted for, but the rocket engine effect of the gasses following the exit of the bullet will produce additional thrust. In a rifle this is a significant contributor to recoil. Muzzle brakes take advantage of this exit gas by deflecting it to decelerate the rifle and reduce recoil. It will add about 25% to the total recoil in a 9mm.
    Perhaps, but how much difference would there be in rocket effect between a 9mm 115 gn bullet and a 9mm 147 gn bullet? A .45 165 gn bullet and a 230 gn bullet? A .40 cal bullet and a 9mm bullet. It may very well be that the effect is so close that it's a wash.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fitch View Post
    ...There are a lot of assumptions that need to be made in dealing with the above two factors.
    Perhaps. But one 'assumption' is that we are using the empty weight of the gun but shooting with a full magazine. We wouldn't want to do that because we wouldn't be using accurate numbers for weight. But if we wanted to load only one round for testing, we measure the weight as it would be fired. If we want to shoot with a full mag then we measure the weight with a full mag.

    As for the jet effect, as well as bullet friction and some other parameters, we do have to make some assumptions. But even with the assumptions, it's fairly accurate to approximate comparative results.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fitch View Post
    ...In my case I use the recoil energy calculated using QuickLoad with takes into account these two factors. QuickLoad doesn't account for the slide or type of action. It's more accurate for a rifle or revolver, or single shot pistol, but it's what I have.
    Cool!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fitch View Post
    ...For a Glock 19 with 115g bullet exiting at 1240 fps, fully loaded magazine (i.e. the first shot) will have a total recoil of 4.98 ft/lbs including all factors. The last shot fired would have a total recoil of 6.77 ft-lbs. Same gun, 147g bullet, full magazine 5.1 ft-lbs, empty magazine (last shot) 6.94 ft-lb. Not a lot of difference but it may feel different.

    I did a quick look at the matching gun in .40 caliber (Glock 23). I don't own a .40 and don't reload for it so I just modeled a 180g bullet at around 1,030 fps. Full magazine result was 7.39 ft-lb, empty magazine result was 10.86 ft-lb.

    Comparing the 9mm 6.77 ft-lb to the S&W .40 10.86 ft-lb the .40 shooting a 180g bullet has about 160% of the recoil of a 9mm shooting a 115g bullet.
    Thanks for sharing that! My simple formula is giving slightly lower results. But the comparative results, i.e the % difference is pretty close.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fitch View Post
    ...Bottom line, based on my independent approach neglecting the dynamics of the action, your initial hypothesis of about 50% more recoil holds up even if the other factors are taken into account.
    you don't know how much I appreciate you going to all the trouble to do the calculations etc. I'm really glad to see some corroboration finally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fitch View Post
    ...I know from personal experience, the action type does matter. My Walther PPK/S which is a blow back action has a lot more felt recoil than my SIG P238 which has an action much like a 1911. The difference is really noticable. I'm pretty sure that could be modeled in a FEM dynamic model of the different guns but that's way beyond anything I can do.

    Fitch
    Felt recoil can be subjective, not necessarily inaccurate but it is important that parameters are the same, especially bullet weight, bullet energy, and gun weight. My purpose was to give some insight into ways to approximate recoil based on the bullet weight, energy and gun weight. Primarily in the context of minimizing recoil for say a wife or girlfriend that's recoil sensitive and may be better served by significant less recoil, i.e 150 - 160%, than some other benefit of a heavier bullet.

    I do thank you for all the trouble you went to to do the work and post this!

    Tangle
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  11. #26
    VIP Member
    Array gunthorp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    home office
    Posts
    2,355
    The recoil energy imparted by the powder charge weight as it exits the muzzle is insignificant in a short handgun cartridge. Due to the short duration of acceleration and barrel friction, these internal ballistics may also be ignored. Although a heavier bullet has less muzzle velocity, it imparts more momentum to the slide and requires a heavier recoil spring. Potential work or kinetic energy (1/2mv**2) is the derivative of the integral sum momentum (mv). The total force required to stop the gun will be equal and opposite the total force applied to the bullet. The momentum of the bullet will equal the momentum of the gun, a fast , light bullet versus a heavy, slow gun. A fast, light bullet has less momentum than a slower, heavier bullet with the same kinetic energy, and it imparts less momentum to the gun. The heavier recoil from a heavier bullet may be explained by the conservation of momentum. While a derivative can give a snap shot of the situation, the integral sums it up.
    Liberty, Property, or Death - Jonathan Gardner's powder horn inscription 1776

    Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.
    ("Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.")
    -Virgil, Aeneid, vi, 95

  12. #27
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,869
    Quote Originally Posted by gunthorp View Post
    The recoil energy imparted by the powder charge weight as it exits the muzzle is insignificant in a short handgun cartridge. Due to the short duration of acceleration and barrel friction, these internal ballistics may also be ignored. Although a heavier bullet has less muzzle velocity, it imparts more momentum to the slide and requires a heavier recoil spring. Potential work or kinetic energy (1/2mv**2) is the derivative of the integral sum momentum (mv). The total force required to stop the gun will be equal and opposite the total force applied to the bullet. The momentum of the bullet will equal the momentum of the gun, a fast , light bullet versus a heavy, slow gun. A fast, light bullet has less momentum than a slower, heavier bullet with the same kinetic energy, and it imparts less momentum to the gun. The heavier recoil from a heavier bullet may be explained by the conservation of momentum. While a derivative can give a snap shot of the situation, the integral sums it up.
    Absolutely! That's what I said in post number 20. And I do appreciate the post. Sometimes you get to feeling a little isolated and it's always good to see some corroboration.

    I don't know that I agree about the powder. I'm not disagreeing but IF one grain of powder makes it to the muzzle, it is negligent in the 1-2% range. However, as I mentioned in the last post, I'm not sure the powder makes it, en mass, to the muzzle due to the burning. Still all the mass has to be contained within the barrel until the bullet exits, so the mass may actually be accelerated to the muzzle even if in a different form.

    I'm not sure friction is so insignificant. Try pushing a bullet down a barrel. That friction has to be overcome by the pressure of the powder and it would create more push against the gun. That may be the major thing that Fitch's calculator takes into account that produces higher numbers.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  13. #28
    Distinguished Member Array 21bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ky.
    Posts
    1,890
    You guys need to get a room.

  14. #29
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,869
    Quote Originally Posted by 21bubba View Post
    You guys need to get a room.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  15. #30
    Member Array Bigpoppa48's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    486
    Very interesting, although I never came across that formula for recoil while getting my degree in Mathematics that is very interesting though. If you could somehow write a differential equation(s) for the recoil it would probably be a little bit more accurate and be able to take into account a few more variables.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

g17 g22 recoil
,
g17 or g22 with hst eound
,
g17 recoil force
,

g17 vs g22

,

g17 vs g22 recoil

,
g17 vs. g22
,
g22 or g17
,
g22 recoil
,
g22 recoil vs g17 recoil
,
g22 vs g17
,
handgun recoil chart
,
weight of fully loaded g22
Click on a term to search for related topics.