Will changing the pitch of your stock change the point of impact of your gun in singles or doubles? Just wondering how the different recoil might affect the second shot in doubles if you want to maintain the timing. Has anyone tried patterning their gun on two different targets to simulate doubles shooting to see what happens before and after pitch change. I understand you should have a steady gun when patterning, but I am just asking. Thanks for any reply.
Mike J, Changing the pitch will not change the POI. If you keep your head on the stock for the second bird you will not see a change in the POI. However if you properly match the pitch to your body, you may take the jump out of your gun on the first shot, this will make it easier to stay in the gun for the second bird. ROGER C.
Changing the pitch can have you breaking 98 instead of 68! If you are having problems, don't hesitate to change the pitch.
JMHO but if changing the Pitch changes the positioning of your cheek on the comb, it can affect POI. You would see this difference if your Comb isn't parallel to the barrels. I've struggled with this for many years and did a fitting session with Harlan earlier this year in which he addressed that issue. While my scores don't reflect it, the gun is 100% more comfortable to shoot and I've been able to remove the Muzzle Lift and Cheek Slap I had been experiencing. As for your patterning question, I've never heard anyone use that method. With my rib being adjustable, I set the Top barrel to desired POI then used a different hangar on my Kolar to adjust the Lower. Jeff Graupp
Last year I started to shoot back after an extended break. I shot very light loads for singles and handicap for 6 months with no cheek slap. After the 6 months I started to shoot doubles, one oz for the first shot and light 1&1/8 for the second and started to feel my cheek hurts and noticed a welt on my cheek. I assume I am getting cheek slap when the top barrel fires. I'll have to change the pitch when shooting doubles to see what happens.
I was watching a fellow from Alaska shooting one year at the Spring Grand while it was still at the Old Phx club, being able to see the shot I told him he was shooting over the targets ... He said he thought he was right on them so he could not understand what was going on and he was going to get his old gun out ... I asked if he checked the pitch on the new gun and he asked what they would have to do with it ..? I asked if I could check the pitch for him and when I did the barrel was a good 4 inches from the post I used to set the gun against ... We went over to one of the gun smiths and had them put a temp 3/8 spacer at the top of the recoil pad, which got it close to zero pitch ... The guy shot a practice round and was smoking targets, he said he was seeing the same sight picture but obviously something changed ... Back to the Gun Smith and had him recut the stock accordingly then back to the practice trap, still smoking targets ... Long story short he got runner up in the handicap event that day with that gun once the pitch was changed, oh and it quit punching him in the face also ... WPT ... (YAC) ...
Wow, that's magic how you helped that runner-up, wpt! And magic it was, too, since neither POI nor muzzle rise is affected by pitch. How did you know he was shooting over them? No, let me guess...you read his target breaks! They are just more old myths parroted by "experienced shooters" at the club and on the 'net. N1H1
Thanks all! My gun currently had zero pitch, which in theory should cause the gun to recoil straight back with little muzzle rise. Like, I said with light loads I have no problems for singles. It is doubles where my cheek hurts. Could be that I am not holding the gun tight enough. I have a lot of figuring out to do over the winter. I did check the discussions on the "other" site...seems like need to at least try different pitches to see if it helps.
How in the Hell can "ol'N1H1" know everything, claim to have "shot a million shells", and most likely NEVER be or EVER has been a top shooter with many records, wins, and accomplishments ????? If my "claim to fame" was that I have "shot a million shells", without becoming a top shooter with many wins, records, or accomplishments ..... giving "advice" wouldn't be a thought to ever cross my mind .....
MikeJ, Do see a stock fitter soon. Trying different pitches is not the answer. If you are barrel chested you may need a down pitch. Take and stand your gun with the pad flat on the floor and up against a wall, measure the distance from the tip of the barrel to the wall. That will tell you how much pitch you now have. You say your cheek is getting slapped. If it is you are coming loose in the gun, Changing the pitch will not correct that. Only you can do that, by staying in the gun. Good luck, and practice often, but make it quality practice. Just going through the motions is not the answer. Roger C.
I was not aware of N1H1's existence being as I blocked him long ago, get tired of talking to someone who claims to know everything but in reality knows very little so he tried proving his point in many circumstances with charts and graphs ... Life is much simpler without people like him being a part of it ... I don't know what he said nor do I care ... I do know he don't say much to peoples faces when given the chance and just goes away and hides someplace ... I find it difficult to respect a person that you really do not like or care for in any way ... Last I heard he and his bride to be were working out the details of which one of them was going to wear the Tux at their wedding or if both of them were going to ... WPT ... (YAC) ...
User 1, I don't remember claiming that I "know everything." I do know, however, what the effect of changing pitch is on POI and barrel rise. Since most of what is believed about changing pitch makes no sense whatever, I set up a 1200 frames-per-second video camera and fired many shots against a pair of crossed yardsticks to study what, if anything the effect of changes in pitch do to muzzle rise and POI. Tthose who want to see what really happens can step through them frame by frame, each spaced by 1/1200 second with the muzzle position estimable to 1/16 inch both vertically and horizontally. I used several pitches. At the extremes, spacing first the top and then bottom of the pad out by 1/2 inch (a 12-degree up or down pitch), the speed of the rise of the muzzle was unchanged. As was the muzzle rise before the shot exited, showing that pitch cannot change POI since muzzle rise does not occur before the shot is out of the gun. While the shot is still in the gun, it just moves straight back the calculated 1/3 inch. What sort of testing lead you to our own beliefs of the effect of pitch, User1, and what, specifically were the results of your tests and how did you interpret them? As far as my own shooting, User1, I am surprised that you do not remember my two third-places in the Clay Target Championship in the 90s. Or my State Championship in singles. I was on the 27 on and off for 20 years or so, and earned more than a dozen State Team placing as well as maybe a half-dozen All-american spots. Maybe you would like to recount your own record of competition successes for comparison. N1H1
N1H1, it is clear who you are. You have done a lot to give scientific explanations to trapshooting phenomenon. My question is .why would a great many people claim that changing the pitch helped them to prevent cheek slap? It just can't be their imagination. Another question is what needs to be done to prevent cheek slap if changing the pitch is not an answer?
Well "N1H1" ..... I have never done any "testing" to tell others how to shoot, and never will. "Trapshooting" is not a one size fits all, but do whatever works, so get over yourself ..... I doubt that I will ever shoot "a million shells" ..... so, stop patting yourself on the back just long enough to see this ..... " I am surprised that you do not remember my two third-places in the Clay Target Championship in the 90s. Or my State Championship in singles. I was on the 27 on and off for 20 years or so, and earned more than a dozen State Team placing as well as maybe a half-dozen All-american spots." ..... for "a million shells", could only impress the mental-midgets you try so hard to be a part of ..... If I ever go back to BFE/Sparta, I will look you up for a "side bet", if that would be of interest to you.
That's a great quote, User 1. "Well "N1H1" ..... I have never done any "testing" to tell others how to shoot, and never will." That's a perfect example of the truth of Kay Ohye's observation: "There's sometimes a new shooter who shows up at the club who is just a "natural." He shows up with no apparent experience and shoots better than almost anyone at the club without, it seems, even trying. Don't worry about him. A year at the club and they have him so screwed up he won't be able to hit anything." The pride with which you write "I have never done any "testing" to tell others how to shoot, and never will " tells me that rather than trying to sort through the masses of nonsense that trapshooters believe (and so teach) in order to make your own coaching better than what you got, you just pass it on, ensuring that yet another generation of would-be shooters is going to be held back by believing a pile of stuff that isn't true. My citation of my shooting record was just to show that, contrary to your text: "If my "claim to fame" was that I have "shot a million shells", without becoming a top shooter with many wins, records, or accomplishments ..... giving "advice" wouldn't be a thought to ever cross my mind ....." I've been successful in shooting and the fact that it was clearly entirely new to you shows how little you know about the sport you pretend to care about. N1H1
Well, so much for Indian summer and this guy nunhun fondling his mint MX3. I thought he was just "dropping by" to renew old friendships and was going to be busy getting ready for "real trapshooting" and wouldn't bother coming on here to lecture all of us. I sure hope the weather gets nice again wherever this guy is. I would like to see one graph before he gets back to "real trapshooting" The one that shows the number of people that actually SHOT the 100 target event that was known as the Grand American Handicap over the last 20 years.
Ya know "ol'N1H1" ..... the sad thing is you really believe you have "been successful in shooting" and your "testing" has value ..... If you want to talk about "Kay Ohye", do tell about some of his "superstitions" ...... "Trapshooting" is a "mental" game, what you "believe" gets you more mileage than what you "know" ...... A "Trapshooter" will wear the same dirty ripped up shirt, park in the same spot, shoot the same starting post, take a dump in the same stall every day for a 7 day shoot, if they "feel" that is what it takes to "win" ..... Good "ol'N1H1" can take "a million shells", and be as "successful" as "Danica Patrick" would be with a million gallons of gas ..... Doesn't a "side bet" interest you ?????
Though I didn't notice it myself, a colleague pointed out an interesting bit in a post above. I wonder if anyone here can explain this: " I asked if I could check the pitch for him and when I did the barrel was a good 4 inches from the post I used to set the gun against ... We went over to one of the gun smiths and had them put a temp 3/8 spacer at the top of the recoil pad, which got it close to zero pitch ..." N1H1
I thought from all the graphs and charts you have put up over the years you didn't need anyone to explain anything to you. I would like you to explain this little gem to the members on this site. This site that wasn't supposed to last longer than a month. From a colleague of mine that still bothers to log into that other site. He didn't say who the asshat was that posted this but since you still post there maybe you could investigate and get back to us. "Still, the ATA has gone "all in" on WR TurboTargets®, hoping to attract at least some of the participants on the other site to try ATA shooting again. I'm sure you agree that we simply have to get them back shooting for the ATA to stay afloat." Maybe this turbo target thing isn't such a bad idea after all. God knows the ata has tried different things to keep the money coming in. More categories, reductions, reductions again, (google the GAH winner from the 18 yrd. line a couple of years ago) easier target angles, etc. SOMETHING has to work. They still only get a pathetic couple of thousand shooting the GAH event after all the years at that place in IL.
What I wondered was "if anyone here can explain this:" and so far, the answer seems to be "No" I have an uneasy feeling that no one here sees any problem with what the earlier poster has written. Am I right? N1H1
Good grief "ol'N1H1", You want someone to say the "spacer" should be in the "bottom of the recoil pad" ..... now put down the crayons, leave the backyard proving grounds, and go "film" actual "shooters" of different sizes and builds, shooting their shells at a moving target with their moving shotgun using different "stock pitch" ...... Then I would like to see the chart/graph showing how you can take a shotgun, let 5 different people shoot a round of "Trap" with it, and come up with 7 different "opinions" about the POA/POI, having changed NOTHING from shooter to shooter .....
Yes, User1, the fact that the 3/8 inch spacer should have been put on the bottom not the top, is the sort of error I thought anyone who owns a shotgun and has shot it should be able to see. But that's not really the problem with the story. It goes deeper than that. Maybe you can solve that one too. Would have putting the 3/8 inch spacer at the bottom led to the result the poster credited it with? Or would it have made its "high-shooting worse?" Please show your work. * But I do have to give you full credit on the second part "Then I would like to see the chart/graph showing how you can take a shotgun, let 5 different people shoot a round of "Trap" with it, and come up with 7 different "opinions" about the POA/POI, having changed NOTHING from shooter to shooter ....." That's easy. In the first place, it's hard to guess the relationship between POA and POI by shooting "trap" targets. Add to that the probability that some of these 5 will, when they mount the gun, see more rib or less rib, so the actual POI will vary in ways unrelated to their general inability to tell whats going on in 25 targets. The two extraneous opinions (5 shooters, 7 opinions) I guess would be from the poster that we are talking about above and perhaps someone who was "reading their breaks." That would be about par at clubs all over America and why I am trying to show people this really isn't a mystery. All it takes is evidence, testing, experience, common sense, and the sense to ignore most of what you are told by well-meaning guys at the clubs who, unfortunately, just pass on what they were told and have "never thought about it much." N1H1 Of course all this is just a mistake. The 1200 fps videos I wish I could show you make it perfectly clear that in the 0.0035 seconds the shot is on the barrel, the muzzle doesn't rise at all. The gun just moves straight back no matter the pitch of the stock is.
Ya know "ol'N1H1" ..... show your "videos" to all the mental midgets in Kool Aid Land, who always tell "new shooters" how important "follow-through" is ..... Moving at the time you "fire", OK, "follow through" is for your golf swing ..... "Trapshooting" is basic ..... wait to see the target clearly ..... point, shoot, and hope ..... Everything else is just "fluff" to maybe aid you in repeating that successfully for 25 or more times in a row ..... I am sure you can remember the 2008 Sparta Grand, where the Beretta exhibition shooter rode a bike, shot from the hip, and ran the skeet targets ..... After the many years I have been around "Trap", the one thing I can tell you is, there is not a "right way" or "proper equipment" to shoot a clay target ..... Just different ways and equipment that work for different people .....
Does that mean you can't see what's really wrong with that POI change with adding a 3/8 inch spacer story? Come on, User 1, give it some thought! Maybe you can show members here that thinking can sometimes pay off, if only to clear the BS out of ones head. Neil
No ... what it "means" is, you and the person who made the post can exchange "what's really wrong" with the "story" ..... Not my "story" ..... and I didn't take issue with an "error" .....
I guess that means you don't know. Maybe someone who understands these things better than you do can step in and take your place. I'll explain it in a couple of days if no one else can. N1H1
I guess your childish post is supposed to "provoke" me in some way ..... You have spent way too much time in Kool Aid Land .....
I exercised the elimination of N1H1 out of my thoughts, ideas, cares, or ever giving him so much as a second thought after I talked to him a couple of times on the phone a long time ago ... I heard all of the so and so says, this book says, he says, she says, I am in the going in the HOF, the charts point out, the graphs prove my point, this shell, that shell, my chronograph, the ATA never told me that, The ATA, Sparta, everybody who knows me, I prove things to myself, this and that, then that and this ... I got off of the phone the last time and thought "what a POMPOUS ass who seems to really be impressed with himself" the time I wasted on the phone with him is some time I can never get back but all in all a lesson learned about the all knowing and I concluded he was a waste of space ... The Little fat man who was never and has never been anything until he got involved with the ATA and proved his point with his charts and graphs to the top of the heap, the last one picked to be on your team when he was in school ... There are somethings and some people you happen across in the course of ones life that just do not matter and N1H1 is one and on top of that list ... Those who are into the Kool Aid, and rose colored glasses worship and adore him, that should tell you something ... I have not read, nor do I personally care what N1H1 has to say or what he says it about, any of his charts, graphs, books , etc ... In my eyes he is like the little piss ant, meaningless and has absolutely no purpose ... He is the big shot in the land of Kool Aid, in the real world he is a nothing and and many more people feel that way about him than he realizes ... Those are my final and last thoughts of and about N1H1, I actually feel sorry for his dog, she deserves much better ... WPT ... (YAC) ... If its not broke N1H1 can fix that also ...
The question is about the 2nd shot. If the poor shooter has a black eye from the first shot (improper pitch) then there is a good chance he will be a bit flinch or eyes closed on the 2nd shot. Graphs and videos don't answer the question. Use a little common sense.
Well, ol'N1H1's "colleague" must not feel welcome ..... He/She/??? was not willing to post about "an interesting bit in a post above", but just "pointed it out" to ol'N1H1 ..... It would be nice to find an "ATA Lover" that had something useful to say, other than "I fight hard to keep milking the ATA cash cow" .....
User 1, Should a moderator antagonize a poster? This is still an open forum is it not? Neil is not my best friend, but every one should be treated with respect even if they are not agreed with. Roger C.
You can't be serious. You actually think n1h1 AKA nunhun didn't come on here to "antagonize"? He's lousy at it but he does give it the ole college try. BTW, remember,if you don't register ata targets you aren't a "real trapshooter"
I must have missed the "respect" from ol'N1H1 here ..... "I guess that means you don't know. Maybe someone who understands these things better than you do can step in and take your place." ..... I think all of ol'N1H1's backyard "research" is worthless ..... but, I am always willing to read what he wants to post, comment if I feel the need, and read any "reply" he wants to give ..... What else should an "open forum" be ?????
I met N1H1 personally and think that he is a good person who is genuinely interested in providing scientific explanations for trapshooting “observations.” It seems that his tests related to change in pitch are limited to muzzle rise and point of impact and he claims pitch has no effects on either. I am not sure if he ever drew the conclusion that pitch change will not help reduce cheek slap. If he did, I would strongly disagree with his conclusion. Kay, Harlan, Leo and many others recognize the effects of pitch on cheek slap. They all advocate that the best way to test the effect of pitch on cheek slap is to shoot your gun with different pitches and FEEL the effects on the face. High speed videos measuring muzzle rise cannot take the place of actual felt recoil. Some of my personal experience: I had my stock cut because the LOP was too long. To compensate for the “loss of weight” of cut stock I had a mercury recoil reducer installed in my stock. Almost immediately I started to feel a huge increase in cheek slap. I thought that this occurred because I cut the stock and my setup was different from before (now my shoulder was more horizontal which is what I wanted). I tried various pitches and it did not help so I took the pitch spacers out. It was after a year that it occurred to me that I should take the recoil reducer OUT. Immediately, the cheek slap reduced but was still there. Around the same time I stopped shooting for many years. As I noted in this thread, last year I started to shoot back. I shot very light loads for singles and handicap for 6 months with no cheek slap. After the 6 months I started to shoot doubles, one oz for the first shot and light 1&1/8 for the second and started to feel my cheek hurts and noticed a welt on my cheek. Last weekend I put in a 3/8 inch spacer (thick at the top) and felt less recoil shooting both my under and over barrels with light and heavy loads. I did not shoot doubles. I did very well for my standards, shooting 122 out of 125 in 5 rounds. Note that until last weekend I never tested my gun with pitch spacers WITHOUT the mercury recoil reducer in my stock. I will keep shooting with the pitch spacer to see if it was just my imagination last weekend.
I have shot many ( to many really ) different guns over the course of 43 years of trapshooting ... I had a gun (Remington 3200) beat me so bad it looked like Mike Tyson and I had a major disagreement and he won, but no chunk missing out of my ear lobe ... If any one tells you changing or altering the pitch on a gun does not make a difference walk away from that person because they will confuse you to the point where they are and justify it all the while ... I took the gun to the local gunsmith, after looking at this, then looking at that, measuring from my ear to my shoulder, length of my arms, having me mount the gun several times he took it in the back room and about an hour later he came out and handed me my new gun ... I say new because the gun didn't kick and beat me anymore even though I was expecting it to ... I was amazed, not only did it not feel like there was as much recoil (felt recoil) but I was smoking targets from every station I shot from as well as every yardage ... I am not and never cared to be a doubles shooter, but I did experiment with this gun and did better than I had expected 46/50 ... I asked the gun smith what he did and he said he bent it and changed the pitch ... He showed me how to measure pitch and told me why it was so important, and that it can obviously make a big difference based on my own experience ... I do not care who, how good they are or how bad they are if they tell you pitch does not change anything they are so full bovine manure (respectfully) that you should be able to smell them from the parking lot ... It is very difficult to respect a person you do not like or care for so to simplify your life you eliminate them (block) from your life ... I can count on one hand (actually three fingers) the number of people I feel that way about, I figure that's not to bad for almost 70 years ... WPT ... (YAC) ...
User 1, It is one thing to disagree with someone, and another to bait them into a confrontation. Especially when you have the power to remove them from this forum. Fair play is supposed to be the driving force of any open discussion is it not. Roger C.
I have never done ANYTHING to ol'N1H1 with my "power" ..... ANYTHING that has happened to ol'N1H1 requiring "power" was someone else, and NOT at my request ..... I find it very asinine to focus on ANY "data", from ANY "gun" placed on a table/stand, when shooting "Trap" requires a person's interaction with the "gun" ..... Each person can have very different "results" when NOTHING is changed on the "gun" ..... So, who gives a damn what happens with ANY "gun" on a table/stand ..... It is just more of "his" garbage to try and impress the mental midgets in Kool Aid Land who can not have an original thought, or think for themselves .....
There are some people who get beat up on the cheek bone regardless of what pitch the gun has and how many adjustments are made. In a few cases changing guns several times and even switching to an autoloader still results in a sore cheek. That's why we suggest soft combs those unfortunate ones.
There may be some members here who see the title of this thread, “Pitch,” and open it in hopes of learning something about a subject they have heard talked about at the club but wonder what to take seriously or even start to worry about, and what can be safely ignored. I’ll start by laying out the basic facts. Those who want more can continue reading to the end, but I think most will learn all they need to in the next three paragraphs. 1. Even extreme variations in pitch, for example spacing the pad out half and inch either at the top or at the bottom, do not affect muzzle-rise, according to 1200 frames-per-second videos. 2. Even extreme variations in pitch, for example spacing the pad out half an inch either at the top or at the bottom, do not affect the point-of-impact of the barrel, since while the shot is still in the bore, the gun just moves straight back, according to 1200 frames-per-second videos. Muzzle-rise does not begin until the shot is in the air, too late for pitch to influence it. 3.Getting the pitch right for your body construction, how much you lean forward, and so on, can affect the comfort of your shooting and it’s well worth your time to analyze what, exactly, you are feeling when you mount your gun. How evenly is the recoil pad meeting your shoulder? If the pad contacts your shoulder more forcefully at the top than the bottom, you might benefit from less pitch. Conversely, if most of the pressure on your shoulder is concentrated near the bottom of the pad, maybe more pitch would be right for you. It’s easy enough to test. Just put a washer or two between the stock and the pad, spacing it out on the top or bottom, and see how it feels. A more permanent fix can be put off until you are sure you have it right. And it’s worth making that permanent improvement. Getting even shoulder contact spreads the force of recoil out over as large an area as possible so reduces the pressure on the shoulder and reduces the discomfort that recoil sometimes causes. Early in this thread there was an example of the application of a change in pitch and its outcome. It reads, in part: “I was watching a fellow from Alaska shooting one year at the Spring Grand while it was still at the Old Phx club, being able to see the shot I told him he was shooting over the targets ... He said he thought he was right on them so he could not understand what was going on and he was going to get his old gun out ... I asked if he checked the pitch on the new gun and he asked what they would have to do with it ..? I asked if I could check the pitch for him and when I did the barrel was a good 4 inches from the post I used to set the gun against ... We went over to one of the gun smiths and had them put a temp 3/8 spacer at the top of the recoil pad, which got it close to zero pitch ... The guy shot a practice round and was smoking targets,…” Both User 1 and I came to the same conclusion; “There’s something wrong here.” Let’s go through this together. The writer tested a gun against a post and it stood off at the muzzle by a good four inches. He added 3/8 inch to the top of the pad. The poster said the pitch was now close to zero. But with the spacer at the top, the gun would display a standoff of more than 8 inches and the pitch would be more than 8 degrees, not zero. The spacer must have been installed at the bottom of the pad, not the top. Only after straightening this out can we get to the meat of the pitch question, “How does it work?” I’ll fill in the rest in a few days, but I first have to make sure User 1 and I have got the spacer-location problem correctly diagnosed. Why spend the time writing something when the poster of the text might stick with his original version and so make my explanation a waste of my time? Where did he put the spacer, at the top or at the bottom? In the meantime, I hope some people here who understand how pitch does what is claimed for it will tell us how it works. Not just listings of examples, but some real explanations – physical, mechanical, geometric – of the mechanism by which changing pitch accomplishes doing what it does. So far, what we read looks like nothing more than magic. They can’t expect us to pay someone to saw on our guns unless they can explain exactly what’s gone wrong and how what they will do for us will fix it, can they? N1H1
Just want to mention that to figure out how much of my butt pad contacted my chest I rubbed talcum powder on my chest and brought my gun up to the ready position and then took it down. I noticed that there was no powder on the top part of the pad. I then added a 3/8 inch spacer (thick on top) and repeated the procedure above and noticed that there was powder on the entire pad, which I think is a desired situation since it allows the recoil to be spread over a wider area on the chest. I BELIEVE that having the entire pad contact the chest also reduces the ability for the gun to rotate upwards around the point where the pad did not contact the chest in the case without the pitch spacer. I am not sure that we need to get as technical as N1H1 wants, but I’ll give it a shot just for him: In order to preserve the law of conservation of momentum and Newton’s laws, if the gun is fired in zero gravity and in a vacuum the gun will move directly backwards parallel to plane of the barrel from which the shot leaves. There will be NO muzzle rise under this ideal condition. According to Newton’s first law, the shot will continue to move forward FOREVER at the velocity which it leaves the barrel and the gun will continue to move backwards FOREVER at the velocity it was moving at when the shot left the barrel. To explain this observation - The shot and gun is AT REST to start with so the momentum (mass times velocity (m x v)) of the whole unit is zero. When the gun is fired the explosive force of the powder propels the shot forward but the total momentum of the shot and gun will continue to be zero SO the m x v of the shot will be equal and opposite to the m x v of the gun. Since the m of the gun is much more that the m of the shot, the v of the gun will be much less than the v of the shot. In terms of an equation: mass gun x velocity gun = mass shot x velocity shot . In N1H1 test environment, there is gravity, there is friction, the gun is prevented from moving all the way backwards because it is against a fixed wall and it is prevented from moving downwards because it is on a bench. How does N1H1 take into account all these extraneous variables in his analysis? In N1H1 test environment the muzzle of the gun will ALWAYS rise because it cannot go down and there is a force exerted on the butt by the wall so the gun will move in the direction of least resistance. I am not surprised that the muzzle rise is the same in all cases he tested, but I do not believe this is a reflection of what will actually happen if a gun is shot by a person. I believe that muzzle rise will be different for different shooters shooting the SAME gun. Notice in Harlan’s DVDs he has almost zero muzzle rise. The bottom line is that pitch can have an effect on cheek slap; it is up to the shooter to determine if it should be zero, positive or negative by actual trial and error. However, as oleolliedawg said, you might not be able to find the perfect pitch to eliminate cheek slap as was my case when I had the recoil reducer in the stock in which case you might have to change guns, use a soft comb or shoot lighter load or find some other solution. That said, I cannot understand why adding weight to my stock (use of mercury recoil reducer) caused an increase in cheek slap. In theory the gun will be moving back at a lower velocity (because of the increased mass) so maybe there is less force on the chest but more upward force on the cheek to dissipate the total energy imparted to the gun when it is fired????
Mike J, I give you a lot of credit taking the time to eliminate the guess work by coming up with an accurate analogy but without a graph and or chart ( or both) you are wasting your time (tongue in cheek ) which have been presented time and time again in the past on many and most subjects by some people (N1H1) that will probably find fault and miscalculations in your findings ... Those charts and graphs end the possibility of any and all disputes in some peoples minds, no matter what happens in real time when physically applied to the actual testing procedure, because the charts and graphs say they cannot happen ... Good job, keep up the good work ... WPT ... (YAC) ...
Does this mean that we will be left on pins and needles, wondering whether the 3/8-inch spacer was placed at the top of the pad or the bottom? N1H1
Mike J, thanks to your contribution to this thread. Your account in the third paragraph "In order to preserve the law of conservation of momentum and Newton’s laws, if the gun is fired in zero gravity and in a vacuum the gun will move directly backwards parallel to plane of the barrel from which the shot leaves. There will be NO muzzle rise under this ideal condition." is contradicted in Canadian engineer's book Shotgun Shooting on page 29. He illustrates that because the force of recoil against the breech-face is above the center of gravity of the gun, in his "First Phase of Recoil" the gun will rotate around its center of gravity: He provides no clue as the magnitude of that rotation and I can't detect much evidence of it in my videos so I can't say that it amounts to anything to be concerned with. Your sixth paragraph is more problematic. "In N1H1 test environment, there is gravity, there is friction, the gun is prevented from moving all the way backwards because it is against a fixed wall and it is prevented from moving downwards because it is on a bench. How does N1H1 take into account all these extraneous variables in his analysis? In N1H1 test environment the muzzle of the gun will ALWAYS rise because it cannot go down and there is a force exerted on the butt by the wall so the gun will move in the direction of least resistance. I am not surprised that the muzzle rise is the same in all cases he tested, but I do not believe this is a reflection of what will actually happen if a gun is shot by a person. I believe that muzzle rise will be different for different shooters shooting the SAME gun. Notice in Harlan’s DVDs he has almost zero muzzle rise." What your text describes is not my test at all. In all the pitch-related videos, the "gun is shot by a person", me. I'm standing in front of some crossed measuring sticks and graph paper. There is no fixed wall, there is no bench. I'm just standing there, shooting the gun. It's as naturalistic a test as can be devised. The video was filmed at 1200 frames-per-second and I gave readers the opportunity to download them and step through them frame by frame with Quicktime or Windows Media Player. They tie three elements: time, horizontal movement, and vertical movement together in every frame to give a clear and complete picture of the movement of the muzzle over time for several pitch variations, for a ported gun, and for a semi-automatic. My tests do not measure cheek-slap; they track muzzle rise. I think that they mostly related, but, as Ollie infers, there's more to cheek-slap than muzzle-rise alone. Lots of new-generation guns are awfully wide and need to be narrowed on the shooter side so that the head does not have to tilted over the comb which is death, cheek-slap-wise. The match of the stock contour to face contour must be considered too. I'm sure there are other elements too, "recoil-absorbing stocks," for example. You close with: "The bottom line is that pitch can have an effect on cheek slap" and I can't say you've offered anything in your post to support that specific claim. Yours in Sport, Neil
Neil - It is obvious that the Canadian engineer and I went to different engineering schools just than mine gave real degrees The paragraph you quoted of me is an assumption that the test took place in zero gravity and in a vacuum, which would be an ideal situation. It is basically the gun floating in zero gravity and fired some how. For there to be rotation about the center of gravity per the Canadian engineer wouldn't there have to be some force acting in a vertical plane to the gun? Where is the vertical force coming from? Remember momentum is a vector in that it has both magnitude and direction. My contention is the momentum of the gun has to be equal and opposite to that of shot so the gun will have to travel in the direction opposite to the shot. Even force is a vector so the gun will have to move in the direct opposite direction to the action causing the force on the breech-face. Been out of school for a very long time Neil so I could be wrong, so I am willing to listen to a correct explanations as to where the turning force about the center of gravity is coming from. Sorry that I read your posts on the other site incorrectly, I thought I read that the gun was fired with the butt against a wall. However, I am amazed that you can shoot a gun "off-hand" multiple time and duplicate the same muzzle rise multiple times and with different pitches also. I did find this statement you made however, "The outcome of these experiments was consistent with my earlier expectation that typical pitch has little or no effect on muzzle rise and people who vary pitch to reduce face slap should look elsewhere for a cure." Here it seems that you made a definitive statement that change in pitch cannot help cheek slap. Neil said: You close with: "The bottom line is that pitch can have an effect on cheek slap" and I can't say you've offered anything in your post to support that specific claim. Here is what I said in totality you chopped off the last part that I show in bold: The bottom line is that pitch can have an effect on cheek slap; it is up to the shooter to determine if it should be zero, positive or negative by actual trial and error. My support was that I said that you have to shoot the gun with different pitches an OBSERVE what the felt recoil is on the cheek to determine what is best for you. This is about exactly what Leo said in his DVD. Remember your whole experiment is also based on OBSERVATION only that yours was based on visual. Mine is based on felt recoil but it is still an "observation" and it is the felt recoil is the main thing I am trying to get at not muzzle rise. With regards.
Based on the pointed non- responsiveness of the author of the post, I think we are justified in coming to our own, evidence-based conclusion about there the disputed 3/8-inch spacer was placed, at the top of the pad or the bottom. As a reminder, here's the original text: "I asked if he checked the pitch on the new gun and he asked what they would have to do with it ..? I asked if I could check the pitch for him and when I did the barrel was a good 4 inches from the post I used to set the gun against ... We went over to one of the gun smiths and had them put a temp 3/8 spacer at the top of the recoil pad, which got it close to zero pitch ..." And we can do pretty-much the same, retroactively. In my videos I explored the limits of likely pitch changes by putting two Dennis Devault-sourced quarter-inch black spacers at first the top of of a pad, then at the bottom to see what effect such massive (and unlikely) changes would effect in muzzle-rise. Here is the result of putting an added half-inch of space at the top of a pad on a gun that likely has about the same pitch as the one described in the above text. I don't think that anyone would describe what is pictured here as "close to zero pitch." Let's put that space at the bottom instead. OK, that's not what I would call "close to zero pitch" either, but he used 3/8 inch for spacing and this is 1/2 inch and we don't know how closely the pitch of this gun really matches the gun in question, nor do we know what sort of deviation the writer accepted as "near zero pitch." What we can clearly see is that it's impossible that he judged the "spacer at the top" condition as "near zero pitch" while the "spacer at the bottom" condition might be called that if you cut 1/8 inch off the spacer and didn't look too critically. That really frees things up for those of you working on your explanations, physical, mechanical, and/or geometric, of the mechanisms by which changing pitch accomplishes what it is credited with doing. After all, now you only have to account for realistic situations, not impossible ones, and that should cut your work by more than half. I really have to set a deadline of Saturday evening for submissions. It'll be fun for all of us to compare what's been submitted here by then with my offering to be posted Saturday evening, the 9th of December, 2017. You all had better get moving if you want credit! I anticipate the ensuing discussion will be even more interesting than this thread has been so far as we sort through the submissions and discuss their logic, evidence and quality of argument. Maybe we can even come to a consensus about the effect of pitch on POI and muzzle rise even without the added help of my videos! Yours in Sport, Neil
How do you measure pitch Neil? I hope it not by looking at the butt pad alone It is obvious that the person made a typo Neil...here is what he meant to say: I asked if he checked the pitch on the new gun and he asked what they would have to do with it ..? I asked if I could check the pitch for him and when I did the barrel was a good 4 inches from the post I used to set the gun against ... We went over to one of the gun smiths and had them put a temp 3/8 spacer at the bottom of the recoil pad, which got it close to zero pitch ...
Thanks for correcting that Mike, some times my fingers get ahead of my brain being as I am one of those hunt and peck typists ... If I use more than two fingers there is no telling what might end up being typed, something for sure would get me banned or a temp seat in the Penalty box ... WPT ... (YAC) ... If you try to communicate with Ol' N1H1 long enough you'll end up asking your self why ..?
It is always fun to see some people try to quantify "perceptions" or "introspection" ..... "An argument is what we offer through language as a means of proving, explaining, persuading, convincing, or otherwise showing that the truth of something follows from the truth of something else. Every argument consists of two parts. One is the claim, a statement asserting that such-and-such is the case. The other is the evidence, the statement(s) offered to show that the claim is true. Because asserting claims and defending them with evidence occurs throughout cognitive science, arguments are advanced everywhere in cognitive science. Sometimes arguments are advanced in support of answers to empirical questions (questions about the way the world was, is, or will be). Sometimes arguments are advanced in support of answers to philosophical questions (fundamental or open questions about the meaning, truth, or logical relations among our ideas, concepts, theories, etc.). And sometimes they try to answer both types of questions simultaneously -- a very tricky affair." "How do your perceptions compare with those of other people? What does a red apple look like? Do we see the same color of red? What does chicken taste like? What does giving birth feel like? If we both place our hands on a hot stove, will our pains be similar? How do you feel when you recognize the sound of gunfire (tornado sirens, or loud music at 3:00 AM)?" "These are but a few of the host a questions about the nature of subjective perceptual experience for which introspection is the method of choice. All scientific methods are "inspections" of a sort -- ways of observing some subject in the world. Introspection is the method whereby you "look" within yourself to report what is going on in your mind, how you feel, or what it is like to be you." "For instance, suppose you and a friend were to visit the top of the Empire State Building. As your friend approaches the edge, you notice that he becomes flushed, anxious, and nervous. You infer on the basis of this observation that he has a fear of heights. While there is a sense in which your "outward" inspection answers the question how your friend feels, there is another sense in which it does not. In this other sense, your friend needs to report the quality of his own experience. To do that, he must look within himself and report how he feels: "I feel scared." "I'm afraid of heights." "My pulse is racing and I feel lightheaded." That is introspection." http://www.mind.ilstu.edu/curriculum/perception_intro/intro_to_methods_short.php The one thing that has been proven through the years of "Trapshooting" cyber-chat ..... too much Kool Aid causes some adults to have the "IQ" of a carrot .....
Well I'm glad to have the position of the spacer cleared up! It's been hanging around for four days and I really don't think I should have had to rub your noses in it to get you to put it in writing. As you will see Saturday, where it was placed is critical to my analysis of the "PHX club miracle" and I didn't want a switcheroo at the last minute. N1H1
You came back on here with all that just so you could, in your world of charts and graphs, "rub his nose in it?" I saw the post about where the spacer was and knew he meant bottom. As apparently so did EVERYONE else except you. My guess is you don't like WPT very much and any chance you get you take a swipe at him. "Rub his nose in it"? And to think, all I had to do was change the words from top to bottom and you wouldn't have had anything to say. How about this? You think that place in Il. is great and the ata is going in a fantastic direction. Why don't you put up a graph showing the "probable" attendance number for the next GAH event. All the easier targets, about the dumbest idea, the shell speed/dram BS, and the one time reduction TWICE ( see Adam Stefkovich)and the move to that place in Il. and the numbers are a pathetic 1,745 then a big surge to 2,003. 1,745 and 2,003 after all the years at that place in Il.? Now THAT is getting your "nose rubbed in it".
Mike J., it's great that you have access to the videos. I hope you will go back, download the MP4's, and post here whether you see any evidence that the muzzle rises before the shot exits. Your description of what you see can end this controversy right there. N1H1
Not sure what controversy you are talking about. The muzzle rise is caused by moments around where the butt pad contacts the shoulder pocket. If there is nothing to stop the backwards movement of the gun there will be no muzzle rise. You still have to answer where the vertical force is coming from to support the rotataion about the CG per the Canadian engineer. Have you calculated how long the shot stays in the barrel? Just asking so we can tell if the high speed video will capture any rise. For example, if it takes a millionth of a second for the shot to leave the barrel a 2000 frame per second might not capture any barrel rise.
Not that I want to answer for ol'N1H1 ..... but think "teeter totter effect" ..... "He illustrates that because the force of recoil against the breech-face is above the center of gravity of the gun, in his "First Phase of Recoil" the gun will rotate around its center of gravity"
So are we saying that if a gun is placed in some sort of cradle and placed in a skating rink (so it can get free horizontal movement) and fired (by some remote mechanism) the gun will flip up? I would like to see this experiment, but I guess it will be hard to do. Not trying to be a hard ass, but I think the gun will move parallel to the force driving the shot if not hindered by some obstacle like a person's shoulder. I admit I can be wrong on this.
Mike J, you started this thread with "Will changing the pitch of your stock change the point of impact of your gun in singles or doubles?" and the answer is right at your fingertips. Find the MP4's, step through them, frame-by-frame. You will have your answer and you can announce it here. N1H1
I think we have settled that pitch will not change the POI. I am more interested in the effects on cheek slap right now.
It is not being a "hard ass" ..... but, "conclusions" with limited information makes for a long thread ..... I have not "read" this "Canadian engineer's book" ..... so, I have no idea if the "center of gravity" is supposed to be represented as "stationary", "moving", or anything else he may used for his "observations" ...... It would be easy to "guess" something would "rotate" around something "stationary" ..... Having said that, without knowing everything about someone's "observations", there are "conditions" the shotgun could/would not "rotate" and just "move parallel" ..... Add a 400 pound shooter "restricting" the shotgun or "forcefully moving" it in a direction that may "cancel" any "effect", then the "conversation" changes ..... When "Trapshooting" there are 4 points of "contact" a shotgun "normally" has with the "body" ..... left hand, right hand, "cheek", and arm/shoulder ..... So, why not add "information/controls", like shooter size/shape/weight, shooter health/condition, clothing, shell quality, rib height, "sight picture", drop at "heel", drop at "comb", "forearm" size, different holding "pressure/techniques", and so on ?????
Mike J: "I think we have settled that pitch will not change the POI." Does that...does that...does that mean that the tale about putting a fellow in the runner-up spot in a handicap by changing the pitch on his new gun for him at the Spring Grand is just that, a tale? N1H1
Mike J, I have always thought the term "cheek slap" means any movement of the gun that causes discomfort to the cheek. Sounds silly to state that but please realize that muzzle rise is not the only movement a gun can make that could cause discomfort to the shooters cheek. If a gun has a comb that is lower in the back (portion nearest the recoil pad) than in the front (using the center line of the bore extended over the comb as your reference line), simple rearward movement of the gun in relation to the shooters cheek could cause "cheek slap". If by adjusting the pitch of the recoil pad a shooter is able to better absorb the rearward movement of the gun upon firing and/or maintain his cheek position in relation to the comb throughout the recoil process, then that might reduce the dreaded slap. The great thing about testing the effects of pitch on cheek slap is that it costs nearly nothing to try. N1H1 has demonstrated with great pictures how adding a few comb spacers between the recoil pad and stock can drastically alter pitch so a shooter can test what pitch feels best and if it helps with cheek slap or recoil for that particular shooter. For what it is worth, I have tested several different levels of pitch on my own guns and have never felt that the pitch had any impact on the P.O.I. for me.
I shoot a K80 trap special with zero pitch after I had the stock cut. By zero pitch I mean that a line drawn through the center-line of the barrel is perpendicular to the line drawn parallel to the butt plate. I shoot with my head upright and I still get cheek slap. Without the pitch spacer there is a gap between the top of the butt pad and my shoulder pocket as I mentioned above testing with talcum powder. With a 3/8 inch spacer there is no gap. I shot last weekend with the spacer and felt less cheek slap. I will continue shooting with the spacer to see if last week was just my imagination.
Mike J Adjust the pad to make 100% contact with your shoulder when gun is mounted and you are ready to shoot. Make sure you are keeping the stock in full contact when moving to the bird. If this does not solve your problem, I suggest getting a Stock Lock added to your gun. I also shoot a K-80 I have a stock Lock on mine. I can put two super handicap shells in and shoot doubles and never feel any recoil. The pitch is not as important as the contact with your body. Keeping full contact is important. Roger C.
While Roger C's advice gets right to - and potentially solves - the likely problem, I'd like to suggest a couple of other things to consider. You say "I shoot with my head upright" and though I don't know anything much about a K80 Trap Specials, I wonder how you have gone about getting that upright head. Maybe that's just what matches the tall rib, or maybe you have gotten your head up there where you may want it by dropping the recoil pad below what might be just a normal Monte Carlo. This can be face-death. Drop the pad even an inch more than "Monte Carlo" and it'll kill you. It's a binary situation: OK or not OK. As you mount the gun, ask yourself if you really can line up behind the rib and not be pressing on anything. If you can't, relieve the stock until you can. Believe me, with a little thought about what's really wrong and the determination and knowledge to correct it, you can set up a stock that you can shoot all day all year if you want with no face slap at all. All it takes is analyzing the problem with no preconceptions but rather intelligent questions - What is hitting me and where and why? - and fixing problems as they become clear. N1H1
N1H1, I see a figure 8 (my preferred sight) without having to kink my head downwards. I have taken pictures and see that my head is upright. Here are some pictures of my gun...the pad is not below Monte Carlo. I need to "finesse" the pitch spacer, but it works for now. The white stuff is just talcum powder for a test I was doing in case you want to know.
I was told by a friend that N1H1 is going to rub my nose in something, TRUST ME and BET the FARM because that ain't never going to happen ... I ignore him and any and everything he has to say about anything and everything ... I got him blocked and am not even curious what he might have to say, but might see him down in Tucson this year and he can tell me to my face, unless its not that important ... WPT ... (YAC) ...
Mike J, Is that where you set that pad when you are shooting? Or did you move it for the picture? Are you a left or right handed shooter? Roger C.
We've waited here most of a week and no one has been able to even make a stab at explaining how changes in pitch can effect changes in point-of-impact. It makes one wonder why they think there's no need to explain what they think they are doing, or more to the point, why they think you should do some specific thing to your gun based on their advice. The following account suspends our knowledge that the muzzle of the gun does not rise measurably before the shot exits, so the POI does not, in reality, go higher. The analysis just follows the logic of people who think it will happen, though they are wrong. The gun pushes against the shooter's shoulder which lies below the plane of the gun and the stock and muzzle rise. Here's how John Brindle illustrates it on page 30 of Shotgun Shooting, Techniques and Technology Referring to Figure 32, there are two equal forces, represented by "R," the recoil of the gun and "S," the force produced by the shoulder in opposition to R. The plane of the force R is above the plane of the equal force S and this defines a "couple," as described here: http://www.aboutmech.com/2014/06/couple-moment-of-couple.html Couples cause rotation; the magnitude of this "moment" being determined by 1. the forces and 2. the distance between them, "D." The larger the distance between the forces, "D," the larger the moment, the rotational force. Likewise, the larger are R and S, the larger is the moment of the couple too. Look at that drawing and see that if the bottom of the stock is spaced back, the toe of the stock will press more on the chest of the shooter, moving the average place the stock presses on lower on the pad, resulting in a larger "D" and so more rotation. So adding a spacer at the bottom of the stock would not lower the POI of the gun, it would raise it. Readers on this thread who just wanted to find out more about pitch should follow this advice. If you are at a major shoot trying to get familiar with a new gun and someone blusters up to you claiming to be able to see that you are "shooting over them;" get away from him! Next thing you know he will want to take your new gun to a gunsmith so together they can saw off the stock in the wrong direction! Just adjust the pitch so it feels even on your shoulder. It'll be fine. Yours in Sport, N1H1
N1HI said: So adding a spacer at the bottom of the stock would not lower the POI of the gun, it would raise it. Are you saying changing the pitch will change the POI? The analysis presented for figures 31 and 32 makes perfect sense. I think as N1H1 said you need to "adjust the pitch so it feels even on your shoulder." This should eliminate the pivot point and the whole butt pad will be in contact with your shoulder pocket. I believe under this condition there will be less or no couple but the muzzle will still raise a bit because the gun is brought to a premature stop by the body.
Mike J: "N1HI said: So adding a spacer at the bottom of the stock would not lower the POI of the gun, it would raise it. Are you saying changing the pitch will change the POI?" Did you miss this paragraph, Mike? It was the second one. How could you not see it? "The following account suspends our knowledge that the muzzle of the gun does not rise measurably before the shot exits, so the POI does not, in reality, go higher. The analysis just follows the logic of people who think it will happen, though they are wrong." Mike J further: "This should eliminate the pivot point and the whole butt pad will be in contact with your shoulder pocket." The idea of "pivot point" is a simplification, essentially the "average" place the force of recoil is applied. There is no "pivot point" in the shooter-gun interface, it's an area whose center can be calculated to simplify the analysis. There never was a "pivot point" to be "eliminated," Mike, it was always an area. And that's always been a problem with the theory of tiny adjustment to pitch. I certainly remember old shots at the club tearing off a matchbook cover and putting it under a recoil pad and telling some poor sucker his troubles are over. All these things hardly make any difference at all. Mount your gun and lower the muzzle two inches without using your body, just your arms. That's a two-degree change in pitch and you can hardly feel it. But this is what you can be sure of. Spacing the toe of the pad toward the shooter will lower the "pivot point" as defined above, think of it as the pivot area if you like. Probably hardly any distance at all, but there is absolutely no doubt that the pivot point will not stay in the same place or rise. It will go down. And the muzzle would rise more as a result of the dimension "D" (called the "arm" of the couple) that couple if the shot didn't leave the barrel before the forces R and S rose to the point where the rise would be visible at 1200 fps and be big enough to actually start to move the gun up. None of this happens, really, but it must be the theory of people like that poster, else why would they do it? Yes, yes, yes, he got it backwards, but it still must be why he did it. And yes, they do it they have no idea about any of this. As far as your text: " I believe under this condition there will be less or no couple but the muzzle will still raise a bit because the gun is brought to a premature stop by the body." That's just nonsense. There's got to be a couple. There's got to be a force stopping the gun, otherwise it wouldn't stop. And if there is one force, there has to be second one, equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Those forces have to operate in different planes because the center of gravity of all these conventional guns is above the pivot point, as defined above. You have seen the movies, Mike. the muzzle rises about 2 1/2 inches, a little less for the ported barrel and the gas-operated semi-automatic. That's the couple at work. If that's not what it is, what does it? Luckily, of course, none of this pitch stuff makes a bit of difference but if we give enough evidence to new shooters here to give them an understanding of what really happens, what doesn't really happen - think how much money and how many guns will be saved! N1H1
While I read your post - how was the pivot point S determined? This video where he discusses the cannon states exactly what I mentioned in one of my post above:
Oh, by the way N1HI why did the barrel of that cannon move DOWN after it was fired in the first video I posted?
Mike J "This video where he discusses the cannon states exactly what I mentioned in one of my post above:" What specifically did he discuss - it's a long video - and in what post did you exactly mention that , Mike? I have no idea about whats happening with the canon, Mike. All it really shows me is how much better a job in measuring and timing gun muzzle movement than they did, but that's not what they were doing anyway I guess. N1H1
It is couple minutes in check it out. Here is what I posted above: In order to preserve the law of conservation of momentum and Newton’s laws, if the gun is fired in zero gravity and in a vacuum the gun will move directly backwards parallel to plane of the barrel from which the shot leaves. There will be NO muzzle rise under this ideal condition. According to Newton’s first law, the shot will continue to move forward FOREVER at the velocity which it leaves the barrel and the gun will continue to move backwards FOREVER at the velocity it was moving at when the shot left the barrel. To explain this observation - The shot and gun is AT REST to start with so the momentum (mass times velocity (m x v)) of the whole unit is zero. When the gun is fired the explosive force of the powder propels the shot forward but the total momentum of the shot and gun will continue to be zero SO the m x v of the shot will be equal and opposite to the m x v of the gun. Since the m of the gun is much more that the m of the shot, the v of the gun will be much less than the v of the shot. In terms of an equation: mass gun x velocity gun = mass shot x velocity shot
N1H1 - You still have to tell me how the point S was determined. Oh, and are you talking about couple or moments?
I'll answer that tomorrow when I get time, Mike, but I do have an answer about the canon. Because the cannon's center of gravity is below the barrel, when it is fired it twists around it's center of gravity as well as the couple between the barrel and ground where the back of the canon sits on the ground. They both lead to a twist. The barrel is not rigid and the mass of the forward part resists acceleration. as a result, it bends down relative to the line of bore of the breech. The Brits call it "muzzle flip" and in their light game guns, it makes them shoot lower than they would seem to by boresighting them. If you look very carefully at my videos, frame by frame, you may think you see a trace of that in them too. N1H1
Here is an experiment I would like to see someone do if they have a homemade cannon on wheels. Fire it on a very smooth surface (less friction) without putting anything to block the rearward motion. Put something under the barrel to prevent downward motion. N1H1 seems like something you would like to do since you have the $$ Good night.
I think the consensus is that pitch by itself will not change the POI but, if the pitch is incorrect to the specific shooter some sort of cheek slap will occur and when this happens time after time the shooter will alter the gun mount or his/her head on the comb and the POI will change. This indirectly will change the POI. Nuff said.
Pitch does have an effect on POI, Go back to your Graphs, Neil you need a refresher course on Gun Fit Gary Bryant.........................Dr.longshot
