DHS - Dept. of Homeland Security handgun contract: Sigarms, Heckler & Koch
- Thread starter Gonzo_308
- Start date
Not really, that's almost a negative image. More like poking a hole in a garden hose... Do those sprinkler hoses with all the holes in the top tend to creep out straight? Don't know...
Found some interesting articles at Mag-Na-Port's Aussie affiliate, tho... I'll see if I can re-find them...
It is a negative image, but the same idea.
If a gas wants to expand in all directions, like in the port, but it already has inertia in one direction, that side (the front surface) of the port is going receive more force than the other sides. The gas moving toward the back surface of the port had to make the biggest change in direction/velocity, and has the least expansion energy.
If a gas wants to expand in all directions, like in the port, but it already has inertia in one direction, that side (the front surface) of the port is going receive more force than the other sides. The gas moving toward the back surface of the port had to make the biggest change in direction/velocity, and has the least expansion energy.
According to the article, something like 15% to 25% of a weapon's recoil is derived from the gasses blowing out the muzzle, and tapping off some of those gasses has not only the effect of lessening the rearward recoil component, but, by diverting them upward, tames the muzzleflip that can be one of the more unpleasant components of recoil. (I'd rather have a straight push back than a push and a torque at the same time; I dunno about you, but straight-stocked long guns have always been more pleasant to shoot than ones with too much drop, and all other things being equal, a low boreaxis in a pistol seems to make it tamer...)
Anyhow, the problem with the rock in the ocean analogy would seem to be that the ocean's only flowing in one direction, while the gasses in the bore are attempting to expand in all directions. They're not running along and suddenly deciding to make a left, if you will. I don't have a degree in fluid dynamics, however, and I'll admit that The Journal of Heat Transfer puts me right to sleep halfway through the table of contents.
Oh, the website: http://www.mab.com.au/products/magnaport/default.htm
Anyhow, the problem with the rock in the ocean analogy would seem to be that the ocean's only flowing in one direction, while the gasses in the bore are attempting to expand in all directions. They're not running along and suddenly deciding to make a left, if you will. I don't have a degree in fluid dynamics, however, and I'll admit that The Journal of Heat Transfer puts me right to sleep halfway through the table of contents.
Oh, the website: http://www.mab.com.au/products/magnaport/default.htm
To better explain the analogy:
When the rock hits the water, the water must flow around it, and in so doing should push equally on all sides of the weight, just as the gas must expand in all directions to push against all surfaces of the port. Despite being pressurized from all sides, the weight ends up moving in the direction of the current.
The front surface of the port is a parachute, just like the vertical surface of a jet engine reverser is. When a fluid changes direction, it pushes against the surface that forced the change.
Thanks for the link.
When the rock hits the water, the water must flow around it, and in so doing should push equally on all sides of the weight, just as the gas must expand in all directions to push against all surfaces of the port. Despite being pressurized from all sides, the weight ends up moving in the direction of the current.
The front surface of the port is a parachute, just like the vertical surface of a jet engine reverser is. When a fluid changes direction, it pushes against the surface that forced the change.
Thanks for the link.
Hey, Handy:
I own both a USP45 and a Glock M21 and when I take the USP I ALWAYS drag along the Glock 21 for comparative purposes.
You are one of the few who feel the way you do. And I've never taut [sic] physics but I have taken a few courses in my life and I've read a few pages from a few textbooks. And I've slept in a Motel 6 before, too.
Try some rapid aimed fire - maybe an El Presidente drill or two with both and see which one you're the quickest with. They are different, for sure. I can sense the Glock's relatively compliant frame absorbing recoil and it certainly has less muzzle flip. Try both with +P ammunition and see if you still feel that the USP is softer shooting. Maybe both of mine were (I've since sold the USP45 and kept the Tactical) defective, but I doubt it.
And as we all know PERCEIVED Recoil is, well, subjective. There are many variables effecting what one perceives.
P.S.
I don't have to try to "figure" out why a pistol that exhibits more muzzle flip may have PERCEIVED less recoil as I know why this is often the case. Thanks anyway.
I own both a USP45 and a Glock M21 and when I take the USP I ALWAYS drag along the Glock 21 for comparative purposes.
You are one of the few who feel the way you do. And I've never taut [sic] physics but I have taken a few courses in my life and I've read a few pages from a few textbooks. And I've slept in a Motel 6 before, too.
Try some rapid aimed fire - maybe an El Presidente drill or two with both and see which one you're the quickest with. They are different, for sure. I can sense the Glock's relatively compliant frame absorbing recoil and it certainly has less muzzle flip. Try both with +P ammunition and see if you still feel that the USP is softer shooting. Maybe both of mine were (I've since sold the USP45 and kept the Tactical) defective, but I doubt it.
And as we all know PERCEIVED Recoil is, well, subjective. There are many variables effecting what one perceives.
P.S.
I don't have to try to "figure" out why a pistol that exhibits more muzzle flip may have PERCEIVED less recoil as I know why this is often the case. Thanks anyway.
Chui,
Chui said"
H&K USPs have a lot of muzzle flip and the polymer/resin they use for their frame transmits more recoil into your hand than does the Glock.
then Grego said:
Internet poo champion!!
the Chui went and said:
"Hey, Greg, it is what it is. The high bore axis and stiffer frame (combined with very similar mass) will equate to exactly what I've stated. It's called PHYSICS."
So now I have to say:
No, I was refering to your absurd comment about the super-duper shock absorbing Glock plastic. It's called B.S., not PHYSICS.
Chui said"
H&K USPs have a lot of muzzle flip and the polymer/resin they use for their frame transmits more recoil into your hand than does the Glock.
then Grego said:
Internet poo champion!!
the Chui went and said:
"Hey, Greg, it is what it is. The high bore axis and stiffer frame (combined with very similar mass) will equate to exactly what I've stated. It's called PHYSICS."
So now I have to say:
No, I was refering to your absurd comment about the super-duper shock absorbing Glock plastic. It's called B.S., not PHYSICS.
Momentum is conserved.
If gases that were going to be ejected straight out the barrel are instead ejected to the top, the net momentum vector of the gasses is backward and to the top (backwards to remove the forward momentum of the gasses, and upwards to give the gas upward momentum).
Since momentum is conserved, the gun gets additional momentum downward and foward. Because the momentum change occurs at the ports in the barrel, the downward momentum counteracts muzzle flip. The forward momentum partially counteracts the backward momentum imparted by the departing bullet.
If gases that were going to be ejected straight out the barrel are instead ejected to the top, the net momentum vector of the gasses is backward and to the top (backwards to remove the forward momentum of the gasses, and upwards to give the gas upward momentum).
Since momentum is conserved, the gun gets additional momentum downward and foward. Because the momentum change occurs at the ports in the barrel, the downward momentum counteracts muzzle flip. The forward momentum partially counteracts the backward momentum imparted by the departing bullet.