@@DLN-ix6vf yeah I think it was the same barrelled action the whole time So if there wasn’t a break the differences may have been more noticeable. They just posted a video about that!
It's worth mentioning that was is being tested here is recoil *energy* and not recoil velocity. As recoil velocity tends to correlate more with how shooter's perceive recoil, the testing here actually under-predicts the degree of recoil reduction the shooter is likely to perceive. Great video guys.
No. This rig is testing velocity. I'm not quite sure how they estimated the recoil reduction, but the change in angle was determined by the increase in height of the center of mass of the rifle. The initial angle of the pendulum depends on the location of the rifle's center of gravity, because at rest, the rifle's center of mass is directly below the hinge point of the pendulum. The change in angle between this starting point, and the final angle at the apex is what's important. When the rifle fires, the forward momentum of the bullet and gasses is equal to the rearward momentum of the rifle. The rifle then swings backwards, and as it does its center of gravity is raised. This height is determined by the velocity of the rifle, not its kinetic energy. If you know the initial velocity of the rifle (regardless of mass), then you can determine the change in height. If you know the change in height and the length of the pendulum, you can then calculate the angle. Mass is irrelevant. You can also do the same in reverse to calculate the velocity of the rifle, and then use that along with the mass to determine energy. Think of it this way. The kinetic energy of the rifle at the beginning is equal to its potential energy at the apex. 1/2 mv^2 = mgh Since mass is present on both sides of the equation you can cancel it out and wind up with 1/2 v^2 = gh In actuality, recoil energy is the best approximation of perceived recoil, and when you increase mass, you decrease velocity by the same amount. In an ideal world, doubling the weight of the rifle would halve the velocity, and that would (in tandem with the doubled mass) result in half the recoil energy. Similarly, if you triple the mass of the rifle you should see 1/3rd the recoil energy, and so on. It's also worth noting that regardless of whether a rig measures the momentum, energy, or velocity of the rifle, you can very easily calculate the others using simple equations (so long as the mass of the rifle is known).
@@j6077xxd Kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2. Doubling velocity while halving mass does not yield the same kinetic energy. It results in twice the kinetic energy. Recoil is determined by the conservation of MOMENTUM not ENERGY. Kinetic energy is not conserved during a gunshot.
I just bought a Bergara B14 HMR 6.5 CM and put it in a MDT ACC Chassis fully weighted including Vortex 50mm scope and shot the rifle for the first time yesterday. Based on the existing recoil of my .223 Heavy Barrel in a Cadex stock/chassis I could not tell the difference ! I'm very happy with my 6.5CM and MDT ACC Chassis
Great video by MDT. Even before I read the comments, I knew the couch physicists would question the way MDT conducted the video. MDT is an awesome company. Their sponsored shooters in the field are always helpful and kick ass. Thanks for the vid.
The people that actually know physics and know what they're talking about with regard to the mathematics and experimental design do have a problem with this because it's marketing masquerading as science and their marketing clearly works. You yourself apparently knowing instinctively that it's a gross misrepresentation of the truth of the matter still allow yourself to set that truth aside for the sake of fanboyism.
Pendulum arc verses felt recoil is not the same. Energy and mass verses resistance is a better comparison. If you were to put the rifle on a bipod structured to an apparatus similar to the one used to differentiate muzzle brakes, with a weight scale, you would have a more accurate example. Just a thought, but good to see a company giving reason for using weight on a rifle.
@@caylenwojcik4511 agreed but that's not entirely the point. We did build a test rig that allowed the rifle to recoiled directly backwards, but it wasn't the greatest at displaying the direct affect of rifle weight and muzzle devices. So whilst yes, this is not how a rifle would actually recoil, it's a very visceral way to convey recoil. We'll be doing further videos that better illustrate muzzle rise and felt recoil with muzzle devices, but that is still to come!
This is actually a great way to measure recoil. The change in mass would show up as a modified mass moment of inertia, and you could use an energy formulation of the pendulum motion equation to get the change in energy.
No it's not great for felt recoil but it is good for comparing one to another. I have to wonder if you should have had an extended rail so that the attachment point can be adjusted based on the balance of each configuration so that they all start out level. I'm trying to work out if having them all level is more important or having them all attached at the same point.
A lot of comments below are touting how scientific this is... but there is a big methodology flaw you need to address: You are making a fundamental mathematical error by pulling percentages directly off the angle gauge, and here is why: Because the system is set up with the gun as a pendulum, the gun is going to swing back and forth after the shot (which we can see it does). But while conservation of energy means that all the energy that was deposited into the gun (and the attached arm which has mass as well) should stay there, and as it swings, will continually be converted from kinetic to potential and back again, the amount of energy required to move the pendulum it's first degree from zero is not the same as the energy required to lift it the last degree at the top of it's swing. In short, you've made an assumption that the relationship is linear when in fact the real relationship is probably something like A = Sin(E) where A is angle and E is total energy (that's not the exact formula, and yes, I'm too lazy to look it up, but you could start here: blogs.bu.edu/ggarber/interlace/pendulum/energy-in-a-pendulum/). This means you are very much UNDERestimating the recoil reduction, and your test would look a lot better if you got the numbers right. I would suggest a proper test rig would be a linear motion rig with as little additional mass as possible, and as little friction as possible. Because of conservation of energy, and E = M*V, the thing you are changing is the mass, the energy deposited isn't changing (Using newton's third law of motion, and assuming the same cartridge and load is used) you really only need to measure the peak velocity of the gun as it's fired. If you measure the peak velocity, you don't need to do much math, since that's what perceived recoil is in the first place. If math is your thing, then you can get even more accurate by calculating the energy deposited into the system (including whatever mass is part of the linear motion rig) then remove that mass to re-calculate the expected velocity if it hadn't been there. Then compare those expected velocities to get your percent reduction in recoil. Bonus points: The calibrated background would actually be useful on a linear rig since that's what it is designed to measure. NOTE: You can't measure peak velocity very well on the rig you've built because pendulums have the same harmonic frequency regardless of the change in mass, and regardless of the energy in the system. The only thing that changes the frequency is the length of the pendulum. You can convince yourself of this because EVERY shot recorded on this rig (excluding the slow motion ones) takes 11 frames to reach it's peak swing regardless of the amount of mass. So you have a very limited number of useful frames with which to calculate the linear velocity, and every additional frame you use increases your error. Change this rig to a linear motion rig and repeat... then you'll have some good numbers!
Thanks for the feedback Jason, yes, we have linear force sensors which would allow us to physically calculate and graph the actual recoil pressure, but doing a video of a static gun against a solid surface and a pressure pad isn't very interesting or entertaining. The purpose behind this video just helps to illustrate how it's harder to push and impact a heavier object, with an equal amount of force. We will bring it up with Engineering to possibly do a follow-up video with actual energy differences
The difference in recoil is proportional to cos(theta). The energy being put into the system is always equal (cartridge going off), but the recoil is proportional to the change in vertical height (mgh, and m and g are constant). The experiment is similar to a charpy test, where the angle changes depending how much energy is used to fracture a specimen. Then again Ryan is probably using Canadian metric angles ;)
Cool video. I'd like to see the difference with a well balanced rifle to one that's just loaded up with weight. I try to think of this like when we were racing cars we stripped them back as far as possible then put the weight back to balance the car properly.
Love these videos! Applying the scientific method to ballistics! Your study design could be more applicable to ‘felt recoil’ if you rested the stock against a load cell, which measures force with precision. Your quantification of forces that would be normally distributed through the shoulder would make more sense to the public than swinging about an angular axis with gravity as the resistance. Plus the leverage of the barrel and stock could have an on the magnitude of the swing, rather than the weight of the gun itself. I’m not sure what that 13% around an angular axis correlates to against the shoulder. Not enough of this type of testing in the firearms world.
Indeed. This is especially the case because the recoil is only being resisted by the friction of the connection and the cos of the angle. I think the easiest useful equivalent would be to rig the gun straight down, balanced on its CoM and measure how much it tilts and how much it rises.
Weight , projectile wt, and muzzle energy should all have a roughly linear relationship when there is no muzzle brake. Very visually pleasing to see this demonstration. Love the stuff at MDT
Great study! Great video! And I will echo the question about how much a brake would minimize the recoil with and without weight. Seriously cool video! Keep up the great work, MDT!
@@MDTTAC how about a video similar to this but comparing a couple brakes with a couple of suppressors? Maybe have one that's just a brake, a brake designed to double as a suppressor mount, a direct thread suppressor, and a QD suppressor using the aforementioned Brake/suppressor mount.
I would love to see you make a downward muzzle break that also breaks to each side but not the top and do this test over with and without the weight to see if it makes a difference.
Correct me if i'm wrong but the amount of energy required for every extra degree of angular travel is not linear, the opposing force vector of gravity through degree 0-1 would be close to zero compared to a 100% opposing gravitational force vector at 90 degrees. So a 5 degree difference between 25-30 would take a lot more energy than a 5 degree difference between 15-20, which would lead to an even greater reduction in recoil energy than calculated here.
The heavier barreled action should help to reduced felt recoil even more as you are adding extra weight. I would expect the percentage in reduction between stock/chassis would be very similar as all other factors would stay the same.
Or even the barrel that was on the original rifle. I note also the extra weight was added to the original stock. That is a error as well. Thing is. This video is a science marketing video. Or rather it is presented to be as such.
Also the additional weight would lower the peak velocity as well which really changes the perceived recoil. You can see that in the slow mo video as well. Not perfect but great visual demo.
Nice science video, thank you. All the major weight seems to be forward is that because it was simply easier to add there? The skeletonized butt stock looked like an easy place to add weight and counteract the front weights.
Not sure that difference in degrees directly translates into % reduction in recoil. As the angle increases, so does the vertical rise and therefore the transferred potential energy into the rifle. Good test, I just think you need to recalculate your results.
We did calculate the effect of changing the kinetic energy into potential energy, and even on the light weight rifle that recoiled the "highest", the potential energy offset was so negligible that we decided that it wasn't worth accounting for. Good observation though!
Are you using a potential energy calculation using change in height to calculate? Seems to me like the rigs they use for muzzle breaks where it goes straight back is more intuitive to the viewer, was the concern friction in the linear setup?
We thought this was a good way to show how much force is created from the recoil and the heavier the rifle, the more it eats up that force so it impacts your position less.
You need to compare the change in height, not the angle, as the latter is a highly non-linear recoil energy comparator. It should be easy enough to calculate the difference in height, based on the known geometry of your pendulum.
A more accurate, or closer to life comparison would have been an attachment to simulate the shoulder. I imagine that the rifle here is not in perfect balance being held by the scope rings and that this is more a matter of convenience. And this stock has a nice adjustable buttpad ... the combination of moving the pad up to be more in line with the barrel's straight back motion (3rd law) and attaching weights somewhere in the forearm, would have reduced muzzle rise significantly. I have the ACC in 300 Win Mag and it doesn't even need a brake when set up this way. Now if this is about selling weights then how about those old mercury filled tubes we used to install on our stocks when we were kids on some heavy hitters. Those things worked great!
Yes, having an inline test would have helped show a real world, felt difference but it wouldn't have been as dramatic or entertaining to watch. Adding any weight will help reduce the felt recoil for sure, the main difference to the old school way of adding the mercury filled tubes and bolting on our weights, is nitrided steel is way less likely to cause any health issues and gives you more options for mounting and placing the weight to find your perfect balance.
@@MDTTAC Ah....health issues. I didn't even think about that. I bet they would be banned now, especially in California. Anyway, I love the stock but I had to get the folder, the SRS-XF. And that straight down grip....I'm sure its popular...had to go too. It now has a PSG-1 type grip with palm shelf. Now my hand doesn't have to adjust at all to the grip, it just lies there as I pull the trigger. One more thing...any plans to add an over the bore type bipod to that mirage shield that only covers half my barrel? I imagine adjustability and not obstructing scope view, along with barrel clearance, are some design challenges. But in terms of physics, it is the most stable place for the bipod plus the rifle self adjusts when you let it hang.
@@MDTTAC I wish! Though I seriously doubt that you make them for the encore platform. I love the machine but it doesn't have many options for aftermarket parts.
So about 6.122% per pound of weight added. That would mean weight comes in a distant 3rd behind muzzel brakes and recoil pads for efficiency. You'd have to add over 8 pounds for a 50% recoil reduction
The backward movement drops but the weight of the moving object increases, so it may feel the same to the shoulder, which is what matters at the end of the day....
Nice work here. Be careful I am pretty sure I saw something years ago about the legality (not legal) of adding electronic firing mechanisms to firearms. I can't find it now of course, so I could be wrong.
Does it make sense to think of recoil like this allowing the gun to pivot/rotate? Would it make more sense for it on a sled? Is the rotation/momentum of pushing against gravity different than pure rearward force? Just thinking theoretically.
Awesome but I think a linear measurement instead of angular would be much more accurate, intuitive and clear to reality. This angular measurement technique brings in a whole can of sine of gravity effect. Perhaps a spring loaded trolley ail so you can convert linear travel to Newtons or pounds force.
Energy is preportional to velocity squared, so we wouldn't expect it to be linear. Could do some trig to find how much the COG has moved up and that would provide a better metric than the angle itself though.
Please make a howa mini magazine for 7.62x39. Thr factory mags are crap and I don’t enjoy shooting t rifle as much even though I love your MDT chassis for it.
Currently we have the Savage option with a 3.850 mag in the LSS-XL but if you’re running a 700 platform then the ESS was just released recently with a 3.850 option
It's a difficult question to answer since there as so many factors that go into it. But in the context of a well-balanced rifle, you will likely notice the recoil impulse is easier (depending on the position). But if the rifles are the same weight, there would likely be no change in recoil energy.
That’s not scientific at all. Sorry to the fan base but it’s not. You not only change the way you set the trigger off you actually change the way the rifle is set up mid experiment.. a Manually operated trigger will have some resistance before the seal is broken. Even set as low as you have it. That resistance would be transmitted by the rifle as starting force for movement. by adding weights you have only changed the energy needed to move a pendulum. A heaver pendulum needs more energy to move it. So what have you proved? Try setting a rifle up on a railed sled and see how far the rifle travels under free recoil.. you should also mount a compression gauge between the stock butt with no pad and the sleds rear plate support. Then you would get a better but not perfect idea on how the rifle transmits recoil energy.
Thanks for the feedback, we will be having move videos coming, we thought this was a fun way to help illustrate the movement and how added weight helps reduce what you feel
@@MDTTAC well a fun video it is. But really doesn’t prove anything that you set out todo. Reducing recoil? To what end? Your just showcasing your stock design. Which I have no problem with. Your stocks are a popular design.
@@onemanriflemaker3873 what we hope you're able to gain from the video is seeing how with the added weight, the amount of force that is being transmitted rearward toward the shooter is reduced. Stay tuned for more videos.
@@MDTTAC I understand what your trying to demonstrate. But to claim your video to be scientific is false. It’s myth buster kinda science. All the video demonstrates is that a heaver mass (in this case a pendulum made from a rifle) requires more energy to start it moving. What you should be trying to demonstrate is that your stock designs can manage recoil better than a factory stock. Which will be harder. Much harder. Stock geometry for recoil management has been a long established factor. I would be happy to work with you to reduce the test errors if you like. I could also verify the test results. But a pendulum set up experiment will not support your claim. I know I’m going to get flak for this. I do like your stock designs. I’m also not trying to mock the efforts. But as a scientific experiment it looks and is rather middle school effort.
It is a nice demonstration but it is far from accurate or scientific since the distance between the pivot point and the weight that is added has an extreme ammount of influence at this scenario., wich it does NOT have in reality. every grain of weight that needs to be pushed back by recoil reduces the recoil that pushes back into your sholder. no matter where you put the weight. but in this scenario a grain you add at the scope mount behaves different than a grain you add at the magazine and that is not correct.
Cool video, but it doesn't really prove much. Sure, weight matters for the amount of backward force you'll feel. That's all this test proves. But the center of gravity is far more important. Putting the same weight closer to the muzzle will give the same result on this test machine, however the muzzle rise will be much more manageable. Muzzle rise is a much more important factor than just backwards force
@@MDTTAC . I did actually mean that as proof of concept, wasn't trying to be smart. Trigger gaurd mounted device with cam lobe style actuator, similar to trigger gaurd lock for multi fit applications.
I don't really think that works the same. It's true the heavier stock doesn't move as much but it also has more weight. And because of that has more inertia. And you will feel that.
With more weight, it takes more recoil to be able to move it and what the video shows is that the heavier the rifle, the less impact the recoil force has, if you were to look at it from a shock force profile which is what you're trying to say, a light stock is going to kick hard but the impulse is short because the force goes straight into your body with no weight slowing it down while the heavier rifle moves slower but being heavier has more force, it's more like the difference between a sharp kick and a fairly gentle push, it's much easier to stay on the rifle and on target with the push over the kick
Here's an idea: test more! Do series on ARs and AKs with different handguards, brakes, and whatever. It's much more satisfying, almost ASMR level, than hearing some dude simply claiming "this muzzle brake is amazing".
hello , there is a massive mistake on your devlopement of pendulum for recoil when you are comparing serveral gun like that: the angle of shooting at first shooting. your systeme of taking the picatinny rail is ok if your have flat picatinny rail , but if your have slopet picatinny rail , you will make a mistake because recoil si not perpendicar to pendulum. moreover, at basis you have an angle between vertical line and angle of pendulum due to position of center of gravity. the recoils energy is weight of assembly (pendulum + gun) multiply by elevation (sinus of angle) at center of gravity of penduleum. if you don't take account of angle at beginning , you will make a mistake , if you dont take in account weight and position of pendulum assembly , you mill make a mistake. so takin in account only angle for comparaison ,you will make a mistake. just to see if, you have well understand, a suomi manchine gun wilth drum mag full of ammo shooting 9 mm will create less angles than a pen gun shooting 22lr bullet. if you need more détail , come back to me.
Does not look accurate. If one would take a featherlight rifle and shoot an airgun pellet, it might swinger further than a heavy gun chambered in 308, but the felt recoil will be much less in the featherlight.
To run around with a 17.5 pound rifle with the calibers that they use in prs is insane it sounds like some people need to tuffin up because let me tell ya 6GT, XC, or dasher doesnt kick a my 14 year old nephew shoots a 6.5 man bun in a 11lb gun and he has no problem. 17.5lb gun is the dumbest thing ever
F-Class is a very specifically set up rifle just like the ACC was designed specifically for positional shooting, but, if that is all you have, bring it out and give it a try, the single feeding will make it quite a bit harder on time.
Yeah, it’s a good start, go from a titanium to steel action and heavy MTU stainless barrel vs carbon fibre and then a scope, easily can get into the low to mid-20’s
Nice if a bat was using the rifle from a tree… but what does a pendulum translate to a human who will have linear recoil ? no one doubts a heavy rifle absorbing recoil, just look at F-class, but this experiment / demo is completely useless in real life.
This translates to a way to easily measure and equate a force being applied to an object and how that force causes movement. Some people aren’t familiar with F-Class and how there are weight classes and why, this simple demonstration helps illustrate how felt force can be reduced by adding weight.
This is simple marketing masquerading as science. Sure, adding mass will slow the recoil impulse and reduce free recoil energy as overcoming increased inertia from added mass is well known to do but your experimental design and the math being used being portrayed as anything like valid is simply a gross misrepresentation of the truth of the matter.
Please make an aluminum bag rider with a pic rail on the bottom for B&T monopod mounting. Its literally the only shortfall of your chassis'. I own several, please make this a reality, I hate humping bags through the bush for ELR shooting.
@@MDTTAC forgive me, what I meant was a pic rail _in place of_ the bag rider to function as a monopod host. Specifically for your LSS & ESS buttstocks. Unless I missed it on your website, I see nothing listed. Thanks .
@@joeydubbs763 the bottom of the ACC/ESS buttstock has M-Lok slots and will take any M-Lok pic rail. Only issue would be that it's at a slight angle and not parallel to the ground.
I’d be curious to see how adding a muzzle break would affect it too, maybe run a bare ACC with a break vs ACC with weight and break
Stay tuned for more videos in the future!
I would be interested in that to! And I would be interested in seeing how the ACC and my ESS compare
"run a bare ACC with a break vs ACC with weight and break"
didn't all the rifles have brakes on them ?
@@DLN-ix6vf yeah I think it was the same barrelled action the whole time
So if there wasn’t a break the differences may have been more noticeable.
They just posted a video about that!
Awesome video guys, well done! So cool to have some numbers on this!
It's worth mentioning that was is being tested here is recoil *energy* and not recoil velocity. As recoil velocity tends to correlate more with how shooter's perceive recoil, the testing here actually under-predicts the degree of recoil reduction the shooter is likely to perceive.
Great video guys.
Thank you so much for the kind words!
No. This rig is testing velocity. I'm not quite sure how they estimated the recoil reduction, but the change in angle was determined by the increase in height of the center of mass of the rifle. The initial angle of the pendulum depends on the location of the rifle's center of gravity, because at rest, the rifle's center of mass is directly below the hinge point of the pendulum. The change in angle between this starting point, and the final angle at the apex is what's important.
When the rifle fires, the forward momentum of the bullet and gasses is equal to the rearward momentum of the rifle. The rifle then swings backwards, and as it does its center of gravity is raised. This height is determined by the velocity of the rifle, not its kinetic energy.
If you know the initial velocity of the rifle (regardless of mass), then you can determine the change in height. If you know the change in height and the length of the pendulum, you can then calculate the angle. Mass is irrelevant. You can also do the same in reverse to calculate the velocity of the rifle, and then use that along with the mass to determine energy.
Think of it this way. The kinetic energy of the rifle at the beginning is equal to its potential energy at the apex.
1/2 mv^2 = mgh
Since mass is present on both sides of the equation you can cancel it out and wind up with
1/2 v^2 = gh
In actuality, recoil energy is the best approximation of perceived recoil, and when you increase mass, you decrease velocity by the same amount. In an ideal world, doubling the weight of the rifle would halve the velocity, and that would (in tandem with the doubled mass) result in half the recoil energy. Similarly, if you triple the mass of the rifle you should see 1/3rd the recoil energy, and so on.
It's also worth noting that regardless of whether a rig measures the momentum, energy, or velocity of the rifle, you can very easily calculate the others using simple equations (so long as the mass of the rifle is known).
@@CharlieMikeNS I think you meant double the mass halve the VELOCITY. Energy is conserved.
@@j6077xxd Kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2. Doubling velocity while halving mass does not yield the same kinetic energy. It results in twice the kinetic energy.
Recoil is determined by the conservation of MOMENTUM not ENERGY. Kinetic energy is not conserved during a gunshot.
@@CharlieMikeNS Thank you, I came here to say this. Its the height of the swing not the degrees of the swing that matter.
I just bought a Bergara B14 HMR 6.5 CM and put it in a MDT ACC Chassis fully weighted including Vortex 50mm scope and shot the rifle for the first time yesterday.
Based on the existing recoil of my .223 Heavy Barrel in a Cadex stock/chassis I could not tell the difference !
I'm very happy with my 6.5CM and MDT ACC Chassis
Awesome, great to hear you are liking your build!
Great video by MDT. Even before I read the comments, I knew the couch physicists would question the way MDT conducted the video. MDT is an awesome company. Their sponsored shooters in the field are always helpful and kick ass. Thanks for the vid.
The people that actually know physics and know what they're talking about with regard to the mathematics and experimental design do have a problem with this because it's marketing masquerading as science and their marketing clearly works. You yourself apparently knowing instinctively that it's a gross misrepresentation of the truth of the matter still allow yourself to set that truth aside for the sake of fanboyism.
@@meccastreisand2722 What in the vid is marketing masquerading as physics? Please be specific. And no, I am not a fanboy. I use MPA chassis.
Cool test. Thanks for posting this.
Pendulum arc verses felt recoil is not the same. Energy and mass verses resistance is a better comparison. If you were to put the rifle on a bipod structured to an apparatus similar to the one used to differentiate muzzle brakes, with a weight scale, you would have a more accurate example. Just a thought, but good to see a company giving reason for using weight on a rifle.
Yes, this is just a great way to show how weight can reduce how much the rifle is influenced by the recoil force
Agreed, this isn't the best representation of the actual path the rifle will follow under recoil.
@@caylenwojcik4511 agreed but that's not entirely the point. We did build a test rig that allowed the rifle to recoiled directly backwards, but it wasn't the greatest at displaying the direct affect of rifle weight and muzzle devices.
So whilst yes, this is not how a rifle would actually recoil, it's a very visceral way to convey recoil. We'll be doing further videos that better illustrate muzzle rise and felt recoil with muzzle devices, but that is still to come!
This is actually a great way to measure recoil. The change in mass would show up as a modified mass moment of inertia, and you could use an energy formulation of the pendulum motion equation to get the change in energy.
No it's not great for felt recoil but it is good for comparing one to another. I have to wonder if you should have had an extended rail so that the attachment point can be adjusted based on the balance of each configuration so that they all start out level.
I'm trying to work out if having them all level is more important or having them all attached at the same point.
A lot of comments below are touting how scientific this is... but there is a big methodology flaw you need to address:
You are making a fundamental mathematical error by pulling percentages directly off the angle gauge, and here is why: Because the system is set up with the gun as a pendulum, the gun is going to swing back and forth after the shot (which we can see it does). But while conservation of energy means that all the energy that was deposited into the gun (and the attached arm which has mass as well) should stay there, and as it swings, will continually be converted from kinetic to potential and back again, the amount of energy required to move the pendulum it's first degree from zero is not the same as the energy required to lift it the last degree at the top of it's swing. In short, you've made an assumption that the relationship is linear when in fact the real relationship is probably something like A = Sin(E) where A is angle and E is total energy (that's not the exact formula, and yes, I'm too lazy to look it up, but you could start here: blogs.bu.edu/ggarber/interlace/pendulum/energy-in-a-pendulum/). This means you are very much UNDERestimating the recoil reduction, and your test would look a lot better if you got the numbers right.
I would suggest a proper test rig would be a linear motion rig with as little additional mass as possible, and as little friction as possible. Because of conservation of energy, and E = M*V, the thing you are changing is the mass, the energy deposited isn't changing (Using newton's third law of motion, and assuming the same cartridge and load is used) you really only need to measure the peak velocity of the gun as it's fired. If you measure the peak velocity, you don't need to do much math, since that's what perceived recoil is in the first place. If math is your thing, then you can get even more accurate by calculating the energy deposited into the system (including whatever mass is part of the linear motion rig) then remove that mass to re-calculate the expected velocity if it hadn't been there. Then compare those expected velocities to get your percent reduction in recoil. Bonus points: The calibrated background would actually be useful on a linear rig since that's what it is designed to measure.
NOTE: You can't measure peak velocity very well on the rig you've built because pendulums have the same harmonic frequency regardless of the change in mass, and regardless of the energy in the system. The only thing that changes the frequency is the length of the pendulum. You can convince yourself of this because EVERY shot recorded on this rig (excluding the slow motion ones) takes 11 frames to reach it's peak swing regardless of the amount of mass. So you have a very limited number of useful frames with which to calculate the linear velocity, and every additional frame you use increases your error. Change this rig to a linear motion rig and repeat... then you'll have some good numbers!
Thanks for the feedback Jason, yes, we have linear force sensors which would allow us to physically calculate and graph the actual recoil pressure, but doing a video of a static gun against a solid surface and a pressure pad isn't very interesting or entertaining. The purpose behind this video just helps to illustrate how it's harder to push and impact a heavier object, with an equal amount of force. We will bring it up with Engineering to possibly do a follow-up video with actual energy differences
The difference in recoil is proportional to cos(theta). The energy being put into the system is always equal (cartridge going off), but the recoil is proportional to the change in vertical height (mgh, and m and g are constant). The experiment is similar to a charpy test, where the angle changes depending how much energy is used to fracture a specimen.
Then again Ryan is probably using Canadian metric angles ;)
@@MDTTAC If I may suggest: perhaps a linear rig like this one may work for you guys? ruclips.net/video/AJZdv9rmWvc/видео.html
Awesome video. Looks like less than 1% recoil reduction per 2% weight increase. Good to know when you are building rifles for a specific purpose.
Yes, it sure is!
Cool video. I'd like to see the difference with a well balanced rifle to one that's just loaded up with weight.
I try to think of this like when we were racing cars we stripped them back as far as possible then put the weight back to balance the car properly.
Thanks for watching and sounds like a cool idea for a future video!
Love these videos! Applying the scientific method to ballistics! Your study design could be more applicable to ‘felt recoil’ if you rested the stock against a load cell, which measures force with precision. Your quantification of forces that would be normally distributed through the shoulder would make more sense to the public than swinging about an angular axis with gravity as the resistance. Plus the leverage of the barrel and stock could have an on the magnitude of the swing, rather than the weight of the gun itself. I’m not sure what that 13% around an angular axis correlates to against the shoulder. Not enough of this type of testing in the firearms world.
Indeed. This is especially the case because the recoil is only being resisted by the friction of the connection and the cos of the angle. I think the easiest useful equivalent would be to rig the gun straight down, balanced on its CoM and measure how much it tilts and how much it rises.
You guys are doing the real science we need
Weight , projectile wt, and muzzle energy should all have a roughly linear relationship when there is no muzzle brake. Very visually pleasing to see this demonstration. Love the stuff at MDT
Great demonstration
Neat! Well done Ryan its nice seeing a familiar face. The weighted setup has me really considering upgrading my ESS to an ACC. Cheers!
The MDT butt stock sure flexes weighted up under recoil. Suppressors make excellent recoil reducers.
Not compared to a brake, this has also been tested
Yes, one of the downsides of shooting as part of a pendulum and not fully supporting the rifle.
I taped some rocks to my ruger American stock and i received even impressive #'s than you guys did. Thanks for sharing.....
Great study! Great video! And I will echo the question about how much a brake would minimize the recoil with and without weight. Seriously cool video! Keep up the great work, MDT!
thanks for the feedback, we are always looking at adding new videos and brakes have come up before.
@@MDTTAC how about a video similar to this but comparing a couple brakes with a couple of suppressors? Maybe have one that's just a brake, a brake designed to double as a suppressor mount, a direct thread suppressor, and a QD suppressor using the aforementioned Brake/suppressor mount.
@@jonuldrick Could be a future video for sure!
Science baby! Love this video.
I would love to see you make a downward muzzle break that also breaks to each side but not the top and do this test over with and without the weight to see if it makes a difference.
Correct me if i'm wrong but the amount of energy required for every extra degree of angular travel is not linear, the opposing force vector of gravity through degree 0-1 would be close to zero compared to a 100% opposing gravitational force vector at 90 degrees. So a 5 degree difference between 25-30 would take a lot more energy than a 5 degree difference between 15-20, which would lead to an even greater reduction in recoil energy than calculated here.
This is some serious scientific scenario comparison. I wonder how it would do with a varmint barrel not a carbon fibre lightweight.
The heavier barreled action should help to reduced felt recoil even more as you are adding extra weight. I would expect the percentage in reduction between stock/chassis would be very similar as all other factors would stay the same.
Or even the barrel that was on the original rifle.
I note also the extra weight was added to the original stock.
That is a error as well.
Thing is. This video is a science marketing video.
Or rather it is presented to be as such.
I had the same thought ; apples to apples
SLAVGUNS linked me to here... This was an easy subscribe... Thank you SlavGuns...
Also the additional weight would lower the peak velocity as well which really changes the perceived recoil. You can see that in the slow mo video as well. Not perfect but great visual demo.
Nice science video, thank you.
All the major weight seems to be forward is that because it was simply easier to add there?
The skeletonized butt stock looked like an easy place to add weight and counteract the front weights.
It is to help balance the rifle! You can add as many or as few as you need depending on your rifle setup and how it balances in your chassis.
That is why a "Noreen ULR" weighs 32 lbs, to absorb some of the shock and reduce the intensity of recoil shooting large ammos, i.e. 50 BMG...
Not sure that difference in degrees directly translates into % reduction in recoil. As the angle increases, so does the vertical rise and therefore the transferred potential energy into the rifle.
Good test, I just think you need to recalculate your results.
We did calculate the effect of changing the kinetic energy into potential energy, and even on the light weight rifle that recoiled the "highest", the potential energy offset was so negligible that we decided that it wasn't worth accounting for. Good observation though!
Angle change is good enough, but if you wanted to measure kinetic energy you would calculate the sin(angle)
Great demonstration!. Now PLEEEEEASE make an ACC chassis for 10/22 platform (or Volquartsen)!
Make sure you fill out our product request form so we can better see where the demand is for new products!
I put my Bergara B14R Trainer in 22LR into a MDT ACC chassis.
@@floridahoghunting803 there are quite of few of them out there, for sure, awesome setup!
try the LSS Chassis for your .22lr shorter in length and lighter for .22s
Recoil is a function of mass and velocity. Increasing mass will reduce velocity and reducing mass will increase it.
Would love to see this test with the dampeners added. See if the vibration absorption has any effect.
More angle is more recoil, but it’s not linear as the higher the incline, the more gravity affects it, so the percentages wouldn’t be accurate.
Are you using a potential energy calculation using change in height to calculate? Seems to me like the rigs they use for muzzle breaks where it goes straight back is more intuitive to the viewer, was the concern friction in the linear setup?
We thought this was a good way to show how much force is created from the recoil and the heavier the rifle, the more it eats up that force so it impacts your position less.
@@MDTTAC makes sense, cool video for sure, thanks for sharing.
You need to compare the change in height, not the angle, as the latter is a highly non-linear recoil energy comparator. It should be easy enough to calculate the difference in height, based on the known geometry of your pendulum.
One of your more studious interns could probably calculate the recoil force based on the angular displacement and mass
A more accurate, or closer to life comparison would have been an attachment to simulate the shoulder. I imagine that the rifle here is not in perfect balance being held by the scope rings and that this is more a matter of convenience. And this stock has a nice adjustable buttpad ... the combination of moving the pad up to be more in line with the barrel's straight back motion (3rd law) and attaching weights somewhere in the forearm, would have reduced muzzle rise significantly. I have the ACC in 300 Win Mag and it doesn't even need a brake when set up this way. Now if this is about selling weights then how about those old mercury filled tubes we used to install on our stocks when we were kids on some heavy hitters. Those things worked great!
Yes, having an inline test would have helped show a real world, felt difference but it wouldn't have been as dramatic or entertaining to watch. Adding any weight will help reduce the felt recoil for sure, the main difference to the old school way of adding the mercury filled tubes and bolting on our weights, is nitrided steel is way less likely to cause any health issues and gives you more options for mounting and placing the weight to find your perfect balance.
@@MDTTAC Ah....health issues. I didn't even think about that. I bet they would be banned now, especially in California. Anyway, I love the stock but I had to get the folder, the SRS-XF. And that straight down grip....I'm sure its popular...had to go too. It now has a PSG-1 type grip with palm shelf. Now my hand doesn't have to adjust at all to the grip, it just lies there as I pull the trigger. One more thing...any plans to add an over the bore type bipod to that mirage shield that only covers half my barrel? I imagine adjustability and not obstructing scope view, along with barrel clearance, are some design challenges. But in terms of physics, it is the most stable place for the bipod plus the rifle self adjusts when you let it hang.
@@deeberryred Nothing is planned at this time, but you never know, we are always looking at new product ideas.
Great vid!! I wonder adding weight changed the Velocity?
You just reminded me that I need to add shot to my rifle before next season. It trying to flip nose first is a bit of a pain.
or we can get you into one of our chassis to make it a whole lot easier to add weight to
@@MDTTAC I wish! Though I seriously doubt that you make them for the encore platform. I love the machine but it doesn't have many options for aftermarket parts.
@@tinmann7187 Not at this time. Please make sure to fill out our request form, though!
mdttac.com/pre-ordering-information/
So about 6.122% per pound of weight added.
That would mean weight comes in a distant 3rd behind muzzel brakes and recoil pads for efficiency.
You'd have to add over 8 pounds for a 50% recoil reduction
The backward movement drops but the weight of the moving object increases, so it may feel the same to the shoulder, which is what matters at the end of the day....
Great video!
Great video. Very informative.
needs a pre-workout cup holder mounted on the side for the lift!
Nice work here. Be careful I am pretty sure I saw something years ago about the legality (not legal) of adding electronic firing mechanisms to firearms. I can't find it now of course, so I could be wrong.
Thank you for the care:) With our business license, we have more permissions for testing purposes!
Pretty good test!
I'd be curious if muzzle devices have a significant difference in trade-off for the weight.
A brake will be more effective than straight weight for sure.
Love your MDT Chassis i have 2 . But . Why Why make light weight Chassis then add weight . Why not build a heavy Chassis option made of Steel
We've considered steel, but the way it ends up going it's not a great choice for a chassis, but it's an interesting concept for sure!
If you just offer an extreme light weight chassis, you can just add weight later and have both.
@@georgeshorter142 Already in the works, HNT-26 is due this summer! mdttac.com/hnt26-chassis-system.html
I love your content!!! ❤
Thank you so much!
Way to go Newton.... F still equals ma
Great channel my man!
The way the buttstock on the ACC Chassis shook was shocking.
Does it make sense to think of recoil like this allowing the gun to pivot/rotate? Would it make more sense for it on a sled? Is the rotation/momentum of pushing against gravity different than pure rearward force? Just thinking theoretically.
We found this the best way to test for our purposes.
I'd like to see the comparison between a Suppressor vs. that Muzzle Brake
That one we can't do unfortunately.
That but stock on acc really had some vibration added with the weight
Does where the weights are distributed matter?
Awesome but I think a linear measurement instead of angular would be much more accurate, intuitive and clear to reality. This angular measurement technique brings in a whole can of sine of gravity effect. Perhaps a spring loaded trolley
ail so you can convert linear travel to Newtons or pounds force.
Great suggestion!
Are you planning on marketing that trigger release????
Maybe? We will see what happens in the future.
Theoretically, if you double weight, you half the recoil energy.
Angles here are nonlinearly correlated to recoil energy.
Energy is preportional to velocity squared, so we wouldn't expect it to be linear.
Could do some trig to find how much the COG has moved up and that would provide a better metric than the angle itself though.
Subbed
Please make a howa mini magazine for 7.62x39. Thr factory mags are crap and I don’t enjoy shooting t rifle as much even though I love your MDT chassis for it.
Make sure you are subscribed at mambamag.com ;)
PROTEIN!!! All the weights on a Acc, I wonder what the actual weight after all the addition.
Get those reps in while shooting a match!
When are you making the xrs chassis available in long action?
Check back with us later this year!
Love my acc and xrs would love to get the lss xl for my 300prc but max mag is 3.750 and I'm currently using 3.850
Currently we have the Savage option with a 3.850 mag in the LSS-XL but if you’re running a 700 platform then the ESS was just released recently with a 3.850 option
@@MDTTAC awesome thanks for the reply.. its a 700 👣
Testing manager for a pew company.
Talk about career goals
I have a question, is the shift of the balance point affect the recoil?
It's a difficult question to answer since there as so many factors that go into it. But in the context of a well-balanced rifle, you will likely notice the recoil impulse is easier (depending on the position). But if the rifles are the same weight, there would likely be no change in recoil energy.
That’s not scientific at all.
Sorry to the fan base but it’s not.
You not only change the way you set the trigger off you actually change the way the rifle is set up mid experiment..
a Manually operated trigger will have some resistance before the seal is broken. Even set as low as you have it. That resistance would be transmitted by the rifle as starting force for movement.
by adding weights you have only changed the energy needed to move a pendulum.
A heaver pendulum needs more energy to move it. So what have you proved?
Try setting a rifle up on a railed sled and see how far the rifle travels under free recoil..
you should also mount a compression gauge between the stock butt with no pad and the sleds rear plate support.
Then you would get a better but not perfect idea on how the rifle transmits recoil energy.
Thanks for the feedback, we will be having move videos coming, we thought this was a fun way to help illustrate the movement and how added weight helps reduce what you feel
@@MDTTAC well a fun video it is.
But really doesn’t prove anything that you set out todo.
Reducing recoil?
To what end?
Your just showcasing your stock design.
Which I have no problem with. Your stocks are a popular design.
@@onemanriflemaker3873 what we hope you're able to gain from the video is seeing how with the added weight, the amount of force that is being transmitted rearward toward the shooter is reduced. Stay tuned for more videos.
@@MDTTAC I understand what your trying to demonstrate.
But to claim your video to be scientific is false.
It’s myth buster kinda science.
All the video demonstrates is that a heaver mass (in this case a pendulum made from a rifle) requires more energy to start it moving.
What you should be trying to demonstrate is that your stock designs can manage recoil better than a factory stock.
Which will be harder.
Much harder.
Stock geometry for recoil management has been a long established factor.
I would be happy to work with you to reduce the test errors if you like.
I could also verify the test results.
But a pendulum set up experiment will not support your claim.
I know I’m going to get flak for this.
I do like your stock designs. I’m also not trying to mock the efforts.
But as a scientific experiment it looks and is rather middle school effort.
@@onemanriflemaker3873 Thank you for further feedback and offer. We are looking at doing other videos to get different types of data.
why does recoil matter with a bolt action? Cant you just use the time it takes to cycle to reaim?
It's about staying on target, in theory yes, but that's the main idea, minimizing felt recoil to help with that.
more weight.. less recoil.. got it.
Basically, but it super cool to see how much weight changes it!
It is a nice demonstration but it is far from accurate or scientific since the distance between the pivot point and the weight that is added has an extreme ammount of influence at this scenario., wich it does NOT have in reality. every grain of weight that needs to be pushed back by recoil reduces the recoil that pushes back into your sholder. no matter where you put the weight. but in this scenario a grain you add at the scope mount behaves different than a grain you add at the magazine and that is not correct.
You are correct about that. Our intent was not measure the exact amount of recoil, but rather demonstrate the differences the weights make.
@@MDTTAC Sure and it still is a nice demonstration. Thumbs up and more power to you.
What was the carbon barrel used on the rifle?
It is a lone peaks action and proof carbon chambered in 6.5 creedmoor
You guys forgot the CKYE pod :)
Yes, the CkyePod on a full arca rail can definitely help you find balance
this is really fkn cool
Is this 308 win. I must have missed that part
6.5 creedmoor
140gr 6.5creed?
Cool video, but it doesn't really prove much. Sure, weight matters for the amount of backward force you'll feel. That's all this test proves. But the center of gravity is far more important. Putting the same weight closer to the muzzle will give the same result on this test machine, however the muzzle rise will be much more manageable. Muzzle rise is a much more important factor than just backwards force
Thank you for your feedback!
What cal was he shooting.
6.5 Creedmoor
hey guys are you factoring in how the recoil bar isnt set to a perfect 0?
With this set up it doesn't matter, as long as the zero is set.
@@MDTTAC ok good, thanks
Reducing recoil by adding weight means you will now get tired quicker carrying rifle or moving around with it.
or you can look at it as building strength?
Flash rig to show something we already know.
We thought it would be cool to illustrate and get some more information out there to confirm what a lot of people know.
@@MDTTAC . I did actually mean that as proof of concept, wasn't trying to be smart.
Trigger gaurd mounted device with cam lobe style actuator, similar to trigger gaurd lock for multi fit applications.
I don't really think that works the same. It's true the heavier stock doesn't move as much but it also has more weight. And because of that has more inertia. And you will feel that.
With more weight, it takes more recoil to be able to move it and what the video shows is that the heavier the rifle, the less impact the recoil force has, if you were to look at it from a shock force profile which is what you're trying to say, a light stock is going to kick hard but the impulse is short because the force goes straight into your body with no weight slowing it down while the heavier rifle moves slower but being heavier has more force, it's more like the difference between a sharp kick and a fairly gentle push, it's much easier to stay on the rifle and on target with the push over the kick
Here's an idea: test more! Do series on ARs and AKs with different handguards, brakes, and whatever. It's much more satisfying, almost ASMR level, than hearing some dude simply claiming "this muzzle brake is amazing".
Got it, attach a cinder block to the rifle, lol ok.
Thank you.
That would definitely add weight, but not make it very useable. If you can make it work for you, give it a try!
@@MDTTAC lol zip-ties and duck tape 😉
@@SnipeU696 The tools to make anything stick!
Acc had a muzzle break on
Plus acc Stock flexes butstock
👍
hello , there is a massive mistake on your devlopement of pendulum for recoil when you are comparing serveral gun like that: the angle of shooting at first shooting. your systeme of taking the picatinny rail is ok if your have flat picatinny rail , but if your have slopet picatinny rail , you will make a mistake because recoil si not perpendicar to pendulum. moreover, at basis you have an angle between vertical line and angle of pendulum due to position of center of gravity. the recoils energy is weight of assembly (pendulum + gun) multiply by elevation (sinus of angle) at center of gravity of penduleum. if you don't take account of angle at beginning , you will make a mistake , if you dont take in account weight and position of pendulum assembly , you mill make a mistake. so takin in account only angle for comparaison ,you will make a mistake. just to see if, you have well understand, a suomi manchine gun wilth drum mag full of ammo shooting 9 mm will create less angles than a pen gun shooting 22lr bullet. if you need more détail , come back to me.
Does not look accurate. If one would take a featherlight rifle and shoot an airgun pellet, it might swinger further than a heavy gun chambered in 308, but the felt recoil will be much less in the featherlight.
To run around with a 17.5 pound rifle with the calibers that they use in prs is insane it sounds like some people need to tuffin up because let me tell ya 6GT, XC, or dasher doesnt kick a my 14 year old nephew shoots a 6.5 man bun in a 11lb gun and he has no problem. 17.5lb gun is the dumbest thing ever
17.5lbs stock is going to handle recoil more than a 7.6lbs stock. simple physics.
Did you see the butt stock vibrate on the ACC? 7:10
Yes, they can vibrate.
Just use a Bench rest F class rifle.
F-Class is a very specifically set up rifle just like the ACC was designed specifically for positional shooting, but, if that is all you have, bring it out and give it a try, the single feeding will make it quite a bit harder on time.
17 lb rifle
Yeah, it’s a good start, go from a titanium to steel action and heavy MTU stainless barrel vs carbon fibre and then a scope, easily can get into the low to mid-20’s
The music is so annoying. I wish it was a constant volume.
Go ahead and switch it oooot
I know eh?
Please do
Flawed system. It cannot calculate vertical recoil
It's hard to test since we do not have an accurate way to measure it, but it's something we are looking into
Just make a 75lbs rifle... jobs done...
That would be awesome to shoot, but not very convenient to move around
You're doing it wrong.
Different weight doesn't reduce the force of the recoil...
Very basic physics...
Yes very basic.
Nice if a bat was using the rifle from a tree… but what does a pendulum translate to a human who will have linear recoil ? no one doubts a heavy rifle absorbing recoil, just look at F-class, but this experiment / demo is completely useless in real life.
This translates to a way to easily measure and equate a force being applied to an object and how that force causes movement. Some people aren’t familiar with F-Class and how there are weight classes and why, this simple demonstration helps illustrate how felt force can be reduced by adding weight.
This is simple marketing masquerading as science. Sure, adding mass will slow the recoil impulse and reduce free recoil energy as overcoming increased inertia from added mass is well known to do but your experimental design and the math being used being portrayed as anything like valid is simply a gross misrepresentation of the truth of the matter.
Thank you for the feedback, our goal was to add a visual for shooters.
Please make an aluminum bag rider with a pic rail on the bottom for B&T monopod mounting. Its literally the only shortfall of your chassis'. I own several, please make this a reality, I hate humping bags through the bush for ELR shooting.
Hello Joey, we do offer both bag riders and Picatinny rails so you can switch between the two, a Picatinny base sliding across a bag is not ideal
@@MDTTAC forgive me, what I meant was a pic rail _in place of_ the bag rider to function as a monopod host. Specifically for your LSS & ESS buttstocks. Unless I missed it on your website, I see nothing listed.
Thanks .
@@joeydubbs763 the bottom of the ACC/ESS buttstock has M-Lok slots and will take any M-Lok pic rail.
Only issue would be that it's at a slight angle and not parallel to the ground.
@@Anon.Emouse son of a bitch!...never even thought to try!
Thanks Mike👍
@@joeydubbs763 Yes, we all of our current buttstock have a single M-Lok slot meant for our 1.5" M-Lok Picatinny rail for that purpose!