SCOPE DURABILITY?

[natdscott]

Smh. Classic ad hominem (characterizing the person) rather than making your case with logic and fact.

Bye.

You might be entirely correct, garandman.

But your conduct elsewhere has lead me to have less respect for your opinion than you might deserve.



And you have YET to make an argument based in qualified fact that supports your very broad statement about "Muzzleloaders / BP...recoil softer..."...

My old TC inline generated almost 40 pounds of recoil. The Remington I built didn't even make 30, with more speed.

Incidentally, the only scope I had that lasted on them was a S&B Zenith. Killed a couple others.

-Nate

 

[garandman]

I don't want to veer from the original question but I believe based on shooting muzzleloaders and rifles that the muzzleloader does in fact have as much recoil as a rifle. .

It's largely a perception thing which has no definitive answer. It will vary shooter by shooter. I've given my parameters above for why I believe BP recoils "softer"...

YMMV. It's not worth arguing about.

 

[garandman]

You might be entirely correct, garandman.

But your conduct elsewhere has lead me to have less respect for your opinion than you might deserve.

-Nate

Respectfully… here's the thing… people who are experts in the field have much to contribute to these discussions. You, other ppl etc. But when you launch into ad hominem and insults and condescension and quoting your resume rather than just making the argument… fair minded people tend to disregard what you say. I know I do.

Humbly... JUST make your argument with fact and logic. I WILL listen and consider. Leave the garbage in the trash can. Please.

A word to the wise…...

 

[natdscott]

It's largely a perception thing which has no definitive answer. It will vary shooter by shooter. I've given my parameters above for why I believe BP recoils "softer"...

YMMV. It's not worth arguing about.

Perception, yes.

But about the "belief" that it recoils softer--and keeping in mind that this whole thread is about scopes--well, I disagree.

It IS worth arguing about because it is ACTUAL FACT that muzzleloaders destroy scopes, and it is ACTUAL RECOIL poundage that does it.

Mileage does not vary. It is a very clear and concise exercise to show a 300 grain bullet going 2,000 fps that got there with a 50 grain charge is going to recoil a LOT LESS than the same load with a 100 grain charge.

Blackpowder, and any pressure equivalent, produces more recoil per fps generated because it takes a LOT MORE charge weight of the less efficient propellant to reach that speed, and it is being pushed down the bore all the while.

Well-proven. Industry-accepted.

 

[garandman]

@natdscott ... you have a great day. I mean that.

 

[natdscott]

@natdscott ... you have a great day. I mean that.

Likewise.

I am almost certain that we'd get along great on the range hammering some steel, or whatever.

 

[284winner]

Likewise.

I am almost certain that we'd get along great on the range hammering some steel, or whatever.

People need to remember that. We're all in it together. Most of these are opinions we have thru experience. I know mine are. I'm in no way an expert but I can say after shooting my muzzleloader at the range, it puts a good azz whippin on me. Can't really say that about alot of other non-magnum rifles. Again, there's something to it. Big slug, heavy load of powder and fairly light gun all attribute to it. I know my scopes sure haven't had alot of fun sitting on top of it.

 

[garandman]

Likewise.

I am almost certain that we'd get along great on the range hammering some steel, or whatever.

The internet brings out everybodys piss and vinegar. End of the day.... yer 99 44/100ths % more my friend than foe.

 

[Ggmac]

No, no they don't.

Projectile weight:

All else being equal, the "projectile" weight of a blackpowder/substitute fired round is SIGNIFICANTLY larger due to the unburnt/burning powder being pushed down the bore with the bullet.

I will 100% guarantee you 120 grains of FFFg and a 300 grain bullet will kcik the dog(*^t out of you, for the same speed, where...

42 grains of AA 2520 doesn't do dat.

Barrel time ! Muzzle loader is a longer , slower push while center fire is a harder , more instant ( relative term , say less barrel time = more velocity ) both in velocity of bullet and velocity of exiting gases .

 

[natdscott]

Barrel time ! Muzzle loader is a longer , slower push while center fire is a harder , more instant ( relative term , say less barrel time = more velocity ) both in velocity of bullet and velocity of exiting gases .

I'd have to ponder that.

Gas "thrust" at the muzzle produces a such a small portion of recoil that it can almost be considered irrelevant. Well. That’s too big a word...

 

[284winner]

Let's agree that a muzzleloader kicks hard enough to wreck scopes. Not sure if there is a scope destroyer gauge out there but if there was, the muzzleloader would rate high on that scale.

 

[Ggmac]

I'd have to ponder that.

Gas "thrust" at the muzzle produces a such a small portion of recoil that it can almost be considered irrelevant. Well. That’s too big a word...

308 Winchester , 30-06 same bullet weight , same rifle , 30-06 recoils more . Proven . Small word .
When I had my gunshops , I replaced many more mid priced scopes coming from 300 win mag 7.5 lb rifles than 50 cal 8 lb rifles by a large margin .

 

[natdscott]

308 Winchester , 30-06 same bullet weight , same rifle , 30-06 recoils more . Proven . Small word .
When I had my gunshops , I replaced many more mid priced scopes coming from 300 win mag 7.5 lb rifles than 50 cal 8 lb rifles by a large margin .

I’m glad to hear evidence. Still tore up scopes on inline BP ML, and slug guns do no favors either.

Dunno.. velocity of the recoil might somehow be slower, but buddy, 40 lbs is 40 lbs.

 

[natdscott]

Let's agree that a muzzleloader kicks hard enough to wreck scopes. Not sure if there is a scope destroyer gauge out there but if there was, the muzzleloader would rate high on that scale.

Yessir.

It took 20 years (plus?) but they also finally kicked hard enough and enough times that—even for a slow learner like me—I have little need for that in my life.

 

[284winner]

Yessir.

It took 20 years (plus?) but they also finally kicked hard enough and enough times that—even for a slow learner like me—I have little need for that in my life.

You know I posted a question a while back about muzzle brakes and muzzleloaders. Do they work ? Well, I answered my own question after shooting one last year that had a muzzle brake. Took all the bad out of the recoil. Hearing protection is needed but i think a scope can survive it's recoil wearing a brake.

 

[garandman]

Barrel time ! Muzzle loader is a longer , slower push while center fire is a harder , more instant ( relative term , say less barrel time = more velocity ) both in velocity of bullet and velocity of exiting gases .

Thats what I meant to say. And did not.

 

[Ggmac]

I’m glad to hear evidence. Still tore up scopes on inline BP ML, and slug guns do no favors either.

Dunno.. velocity of the recoil might somehow be slower, but buddy, 40 lbs is 40 lbs.

Yup! But 40 lbs push over a second or two ( exaggerated) versus 40lbs slap in a millisecond ( exaggerated) feels different.
Another way of thinking about it is the difference between dropping 40 lbs on your foot or placing 40 lbs on your foot . Still 40 lbs

 

[284winner]

Yup! But 40 lbs push over a second or two ( exaggerated) versus 40lbs slap in a millisecond ( exaggerated) feels different.
Another way of thinking about it is the difference between dropping 40 lbs on your foot or placing 40 lbs on your foot . Still 40 lbs

NO, I think it's more technical than that. If you had to dissect this, you'd have to use the same bullet weight and charge weight and rifle weight. Then do the ft lbs recoil test. It's not that simple. Muzzleloaders use 300 grain slugs in many cases. 100-150 grains of powder and the rifle is many times lighter than the centerfire rifles. The last case is not as much of a factor unless the centerfire rifle is over 15lbs +/-. Muzzleloaders have a heavy recoil... period. My 7mm mag never ruined a scope. My muzzleloader ruined 2. I'm no scientist but it's simple math

 

[garandman]

Yup! But 40 lbs push over a second or two ( exaggerated) versus 40lbs slap in a millisecond ( exaggerated) feels different.
Another way of thinking about it is the difference between dropping 40 lbs on your foot or placing 40 lbs on your foot . Still 40 lbs

While the specific #'s are "exaggerated" .... the laws of physics STILL say that the same amt of force over longer distance and time is gonna "feel" diferent...that subjective thing we call "felt recoil." On the whole, I'd say yer right.

Lets argue next over whether sunrises or sunsets are more spectacular.

 

[Ggmac]

NO, I think it's more technical than that. If you had to dissect this, you'd have to use the same bullet weight and charge weight and rifle weight. Then do the ft lbs recoil test. It's not that simple. Muzzleloaders use 300 grain slugs in many cases. 100-150 grains of powder and the rifle is many times lighter than the centerfire rifles. The last case is not as much of a factor unless the centerfire rifle is over 15lbs +/-. Muzzleloaders have a heavy recoil... period. My 7mm mag never ruined a scope. My muzzleloader ruined 2. I'm no scientist but it's simple math

On muzzle loaders yes but it's still a time / pressure ( force ) issue .concerning the 308-30-06 the variables were identical. Long long ago in a different lifetime . I forgot the military testing that was done but commercial testing by a few publications were resulting in the same outcome .
My experience with muzzle loaders were different, based on dozens of returned scopes , BUT when this was occurring, muzzle loaders were black powder , had HEAVY hex or octagon barrels and brass , sharp butt hooks .
Not plastic stocked let weight in line stuff .