Ok, this may be a lil on the dumb question side, and i know the R15 has more weight, but why does the bushmaster carbon 15 have so much more recoil than the remington r15? just kinda curious if someone could fill me in on this. thanks in advance...
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
carbon 15 vs remington r15
- Thread starter texasrebel01
- Start date
Re: carbon 15 vs remington r15
Weight is the primary reason. A loaded R-15 (depending on bbl length and mag size) weighs in at between 7.5-8.5lbs. A loaded Carbon 15 weighs 1-2lbs less.
Also, (and I'm no scientist or materials engineer), but I would guess that the perceived differences in recoil have to do with that fact that recoil impulses travel through carbon composite materials differently than they do forged aluminum.
Weight is the primary reason. A loaded R-15 (depending on bbl length and mag size) weighs in at between 7.5-8.5lbs. A loaded Carbon 15 weighs 1-2lbs less.
Also, (and I'm no scientist or materials engineer), but I would guess that the perceived differences in recoil have to do with that fact that recoil impulses travel through carbon composite materials differently than they do forged aluminum.
Re: carbon 15 vs remington r15
It's the weight.
The bullet+propellant and rifle are both projectiles with the same momentum, but different energies.
As the gun gets lighter, the energy that the rifle receives becomes greater (And the bullet+propellant becomes less).
If the gun weighed as much as the bullet+propellant, they both would have (roughly) equal energy.
When you drive forward on the earth, the earth moves backwards a little.
You both have equal but opposite momentum.
The energy that the earth receives is so small that it is negligible, but the car's energy is not.
If the earth weighed as much as the car then it would become significant.
It's the weight.
The bullet+propellant and rifle are both projectiles with the same momentum, but different energies.
As the gun gets lighter, the energy that the rifle receives becomes greater (And the bullet+propellant becomes less).
If the gun weighed as much as the bullet+propellant, they both would have (roughly) equal energy.
When you drive forward on the earth, the earth moves backwards a little.
You both have equal but opposite momentum.
The energy that the earth receives is so small that it is negligible, but the car's energy is not.
If the earth weighed as much as the car then it would become significant.
Re: carbon 15 vs remington r15
As an addition to what Hamilton said, that "momentum" with two differently weighted objects is expressed as mass x velocity squared m(v2)
so, if you decrease mass, you automatically feel that receiver jump back at a higher velocity. When your body experiences forces, even equal ones, faster velocity trigger your startle reflexes more. In this case it is somewhat more force, applied more quickly. Also, a faster impact "penetrates" more tissue making it seem more significant an event to the nerves involved.
As an addition to what Hamilton said, that "momentum" with two differently weighted objects is expressed as mass x velocity squared m(v2)
so, if you decrease mass, you automatically feel that receiver jump back at a higher velocity. When your body experiences forces, even equal ones, faster velocity trigger your startle reflexes more. In this case it is somewhat more force, applied more quickly. Also, a faster impact "penetrates" more tissue making it seem more significant an event to the nerves involved.
Re: carbon 15 vs remington r15
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BugSniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As an addition to what Hamilton said, that "momentum" with two differently weighted objects is expressed as mass x velocity squared m(v2)</div></div>
Momentum is mass times velocity, and is expressed as lbs x sec..
Energy is 1/2 mass x velocity2/ gravity, and is expressed as ft x lbs.
If you cut the weight of the rifle in half, it would have (roughly) double the recoil velocity.
1/2 the weight at twice the velocity means that you have twice the recoil energy that your shoulder needs to dissipate.
Recoil momentum does not change.
The momentum of both objects (rifle and bullet+propellant) is the same regardless of how different the two objects are in weight.
The earth and the car will always have equal, but opposite momentum as an example.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BugSniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As an addition to what Hamilton said, that "momentum" with two differently weighted objects is expressed as mass x velocity squared m(v2)</div></div>
Momentum is mass times velocity, and is expressed as lbs x sec..
Energy is 1/2 mass x velocity2/ gravity, and is expressed as ft x lbs.
If you cut the weight of the rifle in half, it would have (roughly) double the recoil velocity.
1/2 the weight at twice the velocity means that you have twice the recoil energy that your shoulder needs to dissipate.
Recoil momentum does not change.
The momentum of both objects (rifle and bullet+propellant) is the same regardless of how different the two objects are in weight.
The earth and the car will always have equal, but opposite momentum as an example.
Re: carbon 15 vs remington r15
try one of these... http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=598476 ...works very well.
try one of these... http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=598476 ...works very well.
Re: carbon 15 vs remington r15
Not to nit pick but if memory serves and at my age sometimes it doesn't:
Momentum (P)=mass x velocity (ignoring the vector aspect) therefore units are kgm/seconds in the metric system .
In the English sytem the of units mass is in slugs so the units would be slugs x (feet/seconds) the seconds squared term are from units for acceleration not speed or velocity.
Kinetic Energy (KE) = 1/2mass X (velocity squared), there is no gravity factor in the KE equation.
Since momentum must be conserved the -mv(rifle)=+mv(projos,gase unbrned powder, etc) with equally loaded round the +mv is the same so the -mv must also be the same. Since the Carbon 15 has less mass than a typical AR the recoil velocity must be greater to make the equation balance.
I hope this explantion isn't to technical and I haven't forgotten the Physics I learned back in the day. Please correct me if I am incorrect.
Not to nit pick but if memory serves and at my age sometimes it doesn't:
Momentum (P)=mass x velocity (ignoring the vector aspect) therefore units are kgm/seconds in the metric system .
In the English sytem the of units mass is in slugs so the units would be slugs x (feet/seconds) the seconds squared term are from units for acceleration not speed or velocity.
Kinetic Energy (KE) = 1/2mass X (velocity squared), there is no gravity factor in the KE equation.
Since momentum must be conserved the -mv(rifle)=+mv(projos,gase unbrned powder, etc) with equally loaded round the +mv is the same so the -mv must also be the same. Since the Carbon 15 has less mass than a typical AR the recoil velocity must be greater to make the equation balance.
I hope this explantion isn't to technical and I haven't forgotten the Physics I learned back in the day. Please correct me if I am incorrect.
Re: carbon 15 vs remington r15
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: texasrebel01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">bushmaster carbon 15 </div></div>
They are horribly inaccurate in my experience. I owned 2. They are so bad it does not matter if they are accurate or not.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: texasrebel01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">bushmaster carbon 15 </div></div>
They are horribly inaccurate in my experience. I owned 2. They are so bad it does not matter if they are accurate or not.
Re: carbon 15 vs remington r15
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Santo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not to nit pick but if memory serves and at my age sometimes it doesn't:
Momentum (P)=mass x velocity (ignoring the vector aspect) therefore units are kgm/seconds in the metric system .
In the English sytem the of units mass is in slugs so the units would be slugs x (feet/seconds) the seconds squared term are from units for acceleration not speed or velocity.
Kinetic Energy (KE) = 1/2mass X (velocity squared), there is no gravity factor in the KE equation.
Since momentum must be conserved the -mv(rifle)=+mv(projos,gase unbrned powder, etc) with equally loaded round the +mv is the same so the -mv must also be the same. Since the Carbon 15 has less mass than a typical AR the recoil velocity must be greater to make the equation balance.. Therefore the Kinetic energy must be greater as well since the velocity squared must be higher so the recoil or backward KE is greater by difference in the the square of the velocity.
I hope this explantion isn't to technical and I haven't forgotten the Physics I learned back in the day. Please correct me if I am incorrect. </div></div>
I just looked at the units and discovered that I previously had them wrong for momentum.
The English units for momentum are: (lb. x sec.).
mass is in slugs to output English units required for the majority of SH readers to understand:
For kinetic E, the unit of mass would be in slugs if not divided by gravity (English equivalent of the metric Newton)
mass/gravity = slug
This is why physics is taught with the metric system (which is what I use)
It does require one to know the difference between mass and weight for the calculations to work properly and our archaic system further complicates these matters.
Read the wiki about slugs and it will make sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug_(mass)
Then do a sample calculation with English units but any time you need to put in lbs. divide by 32.2 (gravity) and viola!
You'll get the correct answer.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Santo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not to nit pick but if memory serves and at my age sometimes it doesn't:
Momentum (P)=mass x velocity (ignoring the vector aspect) therefore units are kgm/seconds in the metric system .
In the English sytem the of units mass is in slugs so the units would be slugs x (feet/seconds) the seconds squared term are from units for acceleration not speed or velocity.
Kinetic Energy (KE) = 1/2mass X (velocity squared), there is no gravity factor in the KE equation.
Since momentum must be conserved the -mv(rifle)=+mv(projos,gase unbrned powder, etc) with equally loaded round the +mv is the same so the -mv must also be the same. Since the Carbon 15 has less mass than a typical AR the recoil velocity must be greater to make the equation balance.. Therefore the Kinetic energy must be greater as well since the velocity squared must be higher so the recoil or backward KE is greater by difference in the the square of the velocity.
I hope this explantion isn't to technical and I haven't forgotten the Physics I learned back in the day. Please correct me if I am incorrect. </div></div>
I just looked at the units and discovered that I previously had them wrong for momentum.
The English units for momentum are: (lb. x sec.).
mass is in slugs to output English units required for the majority of SH readers to understand:
For kinetic E, the unit of mass would be in slugs if not divided by gravity (English equivalent of the metric Newton)
mass/gravity = slug
This is why physics is taught with the metric system (which is what I use)
It does require one to know the difference between mass and weight for the calculations to work properly and our archaic system further complicates these matters.
Read the wiki about slugs and it will make sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug_(mass)
Then do a sample calculation with English units but any time you need to put in lbs. divide by 32.2 (gravity) and viola!
You'll get the correct answer.
Re: carbon 15 vs remington r15
Hamilton,
Agreed, I haven't used the PIA english system units in 35 years. It was a blessing when we started teaching Physics using the metric system. I just posted because the subject would be more clearly understood using the metric system. I am quite familar with the english system having had to teach using it for 10 years.
Hamilton,
Agreed, I haven't used the PIA english system units in 35 years. It was a blessing when we started teaching Physics using the metric system. I just posted because the subject would be more clearly understood using the metric system. I am quite familar with the english system having had to teach using it for 10 years.
Re: carbon 15 vs remington r15
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 500grains</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: texasrebel01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">bushmaster carbon 15 </div></div>
They are horribly inaccurate in my experience. I owned 2. They are so bad it does not matter if they are accurate or not. </div></div>
ok, i had done my research on it before, but are you actually talking about the bushmaster, or the professional ordinance? i was reading up that bushmaster worked the bugs out of the PO carbon 15 and made it better. i know i was at the range the other day, and i need to put a scope on it, but with a plain bsa red dot scope @ 100 yds, standing position, i was doing pretty well. i know i know, i need to get a scope on it, but for hog huntin, that red dot works awesome. but i will get a scope on it soon enough.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 500grains</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: texasrebel01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">bushmaster carbon 15 </div></div>
They are horribly inaccurate in my experience. I owned 2. They are so bad it does not matter if they are accurate or not. </div></div>
ok, i had done my research on it before, but are you actually talking about the bushmaster, or the professional ordinance? i was reading up that bushmaster worked the bugs out of the PO carbon 15 and made it better. i know i was at the range the other day, and i need to put a scope on it, but with a plain bsa red dot scope @ 100 yds, standing position, i was doing pretty well. i know i know, i need to get a scope on it, but for hog huntin, that red dot works awesome. but i will get a scope on it soon enough.
Re: carbon 15 vs remington r15
A red dot is probably ideal for that kind of rifle anyhow.
Simple is nice IMHO.
A red dot is probably ideal for that kind of rifle anyhow.
Simple is nice IMHO.
