After 5 or so years of using moly coated lead 230 RN bullets in my XD45, I've finally exhausted my supply of components and I'm looking to restock. I want to get back into IDPA, and maybe even dabble in USPSA, so I need to take power factor into consideration when I work up my next load. For years I've had people (especially the IDPA guys) telling me I should shoot 200gr instead of 230gr bullets - conventional wisdom is that 200gr bullets will have less recoil, less muzzle rise, and I'll be quicker back on target.
Makes sense to me, at face value. Given that 200gr bullets are less expensive, it may even behoove me to switch to 200gr.
Then I start doing my research, and it seems this is actually a controversial topic - half of the internet thinks a heavier bullet will produce more recoil (less mass creates less force pushing back), the other half thinks it will produce less (slower speed, and some theory about the bullet pushing the gun back and not up).
So I start thinking about the physics involved. Now mind you, I'm an accounting and finance guy, the sciences were never my strong suit, but it seems to me that the force is the variable we should be concerned with, not mass. If I'm developing loads with the same power factor (a rough measurement of force), no matter the weight of the bullet, the force will be the same, thus recoil should be the same. Right?
I.E. a 230gr bullet with the muzzle velocity of 717fps should have the same recoil as a 200gr bullet at 825fps, because they're both have the same power factor.
Am I barking up the right tree here?
So really if I'm looking at this from an economic standpoint, my only concern should be how much more powder it takes to propel a 200gr bullet to 825fps vs a 230gr bullet to 717fps. If it's not significant, I can get the same power factor and same recoil using lighter bullets that cost about 1.5 cents a round less.
I have a few 200gr bullets kicking around, and I'm going to try to do a comparison based solely on perceived recoil, but I wanted to form a solid hypothesis first. Also I don't have a chrony yet (or enough 200gr rounds to build up a load to the right velocity), so I can't be sure both rounds are generating the same power factor.
Anyway, thanks for the help!
Makes sense to me, at face value. Given that 200gr bullets are less expensive, it may even behoove me to switch to 200gr.
Then I start doing my research, and it seems this is actually a controversial topic - half of the internet thinks a heavier bullet will produce more recoil (less mass creates less force pushing back), the other half thinks it will produce less (slower speed, and some theory about the bullet pushing the gun back and not up).
So I start thinking about the physics involved. Now mind you, I'm an accounting and finance guy, the sciences were never my strong suit, but it seems to me that the force is the variable we should be concerned with, not mass. If I'm developing loads with the same power factor (a rough measurement of force), no matter the weight of the bullet, the force will be the same, thus recoil should be the same. Right?
I.E. a 230gr bullet with the muzzle velocity of 717fps should have the same recoil as a 200gr bullet at 825fps, because they're both have the same power factor.
Am I barking up the right tree here?
So really if I'm looking at this from an economic standpoint, my only concern should be how much more powder it takes to propel a 200gr bullet to 825fps vs a 230gr bullet to 717fps. If it's not significant, I can get the same power factor and same recoil using lighter bullets that cost about 1.5 cents a round less.
I have a few 200gr bullets kicking around, and I'm going to try to do a comparison based solely on perceived recoil, but I wanted to form a solid hypothesis first. Also I don't have a chrony yet (or enough 200gr rounds to build up a load to the right velocity), so I can't be sure both rounds are generating the same power factor.
Anyway, thanks for the help!