PPS felt recoil less than Q5; why? - Page 2 - WaltherForums
WaltherForums
 

Go Back   WaltherForums > Walther Firearms > Walther General Discussions

Like Tree10Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-12-2020, 08:24 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
CavGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 25
CavGuy .22
One thing to consider is that the muzzle velocity out of both guns using the same ammo will be higher in the longer barreled Q5 (5") than the shorter barreled PPS (3") because the powder has more time to burn. This is a known fact. That's one reason why +P ammo does not benefit significantly for velocity in guns with 2" to 3" barrels.
CavGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Register
Old 02-12-2020, 08:42 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
WaterDR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,287
WaterDR Unproven
yes the velocities will be different. And since velocity is squared....more energy

Last edited by WaterDR; 02-13-2020 at 06:15 AM.
WaterDR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2020, 06:46 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 7
Steve-S .22
Thanks for the responses. Good to know I'm not alone in this perception, whatever the cause may be.

I'm not really displeased with the recoil from the Q5, but I may look into one of those fancier recoil springs now that I'm aware of them.
Steve-S is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 02-13-2020, 07:12 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
CavGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 25
CavGuy .22
PPS felt recoil less than Q5; why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-S View Post
Thanks for the responses. Good to know I'm not alone in this perception, whatever the cause may be.

I'm not really displeased with the recoil from the Q5, but I may look into one of those fancier recoil springs now that I'm aware of them.
This is what I have in my P99. It helps a bit. https://zahal.org/product/walther-pp...d-dpm-systems/

Last edited by CavGuy; 02-13-2020 at 07:17 PM.
CavGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2020, 07:18 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
WaterDR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,287
WaterDR Unproven
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-S View Post
Thanks for the responses. Good to know I'm not alone in this perception, whatever the cause may be.

I'm not really displeased with the recoil from the Q5, but I may look into one of those fancier recoil springs now that I'm aware of them.
This topic comes up a lot. I have thousands of rounds through my Q5 and the recoil has never been a complaint of mine.

However, the gun has been mostly displaced by my Shadow 2 and my p210. The Q5 will make a showing this summer in 3 gun though.
WaterDR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2020, 11:20 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 7,078
halfmoonclip .22
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaterDR View Post
...As to kinetic energy, velocity has a lot more impact than mass. Mass is linear and velocity is squared...

There may well be some truth here. Shooting .38 Special and 9mm Smith Centennials back to back, the nine has a much sharper recoil. The bullets are 148 gr and 115gr respectively, but the nines are crowding 1100, while the .38s are less than 800. I haven't done the energy math, and there are other variables, but the quick jump to 1100'sec has to make a difference.
Moon
__________________
"There is nothing there but war
Hear the murderin' cannons roar
And they say that we must go
and fight for Lincoln..."
halfmoonclip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2020, 12:21 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,263
chandler5566 .22
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfmoonclip View Post
There may well be some truth here. Shooting .38 Special and 9mm Smith Centennials back to back, the nine has a much sharper recoil. The bullets are 148 gr and 115gr respectively, but the nines are crowding 1100, while the .38s are less than 800. I haven't done the energy math, and there are other variables, but the quick jump to 1100'sec has to make a difference.
Moon
The 148gr 38 special equates to 210ft/lb while the 115gr 9mm comes in at 309ft/lb. Of course the felt recoil will vary depending upon pistol weight, grip, stance, etc. but assuming all variables are otherwise equal the felt recoil would be greater with the 9mm.
chandler5566 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2020, 02:47 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 173
HHPIN .22
May just all be in my own mind, but I do recall shooting 148 gr .38 Special wadcutters in Smith and Wesson model 52's and Colt Gold Cups and thinking recoil was greater than in K or N frame revolver. On the other hand, shooting 125 gr. +P in light revolvers seem to recoil much more than a 124gr 9mm at similar velocity in a semi-auto.

It seemed that with a low recoil round, the inertia of the slide emphasized the effect where with a higher recoiling round, the slide and recoil spring offset the effect.
HHPIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2020, 03:45 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,124
matquig .22
Quote:
Originally Posted by CavGuy View Post
One thing to consider is that the muzzle velocity out of both guns using the same ammo will be higher in the longer barreled Q5 (5") than the shorter barreled PPS (3") because the powder has more time to burn. This is a known fact. That's one reason why +P ammo does not benefit significantly for velocity in guns with 2" to 3" barrels.
Also, the bullet spends less time in the gun, and thus there is reduced time for the recoil to thrust the gun upward. Except for the reduced sight radii, some shorter barreled guns are actually easier to shoot than long barreled guns. Single action revolvers with slow bullets often show you the differences in bullet exit time and recoil a lot more easily, and often require more concentration and firm hold to shoot consistently than guns with faster and lighter bullets.
matquig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2020, 04:34 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 7,078
halfmoonclip .22
Quote:
Originally Posted by chandler5566 View Post
The 148gr 38 special equates to 210ft/lb while the 115gr 9mm comes in at 309ft/lb. Of course the felt recoil will vary depending upon pistol weight, grip, stance, etc. but assuming all variables are otherwise equal the felt recoil would be greater with the 9mm.
The test actually was a wash on the other variables. Both revolvers were steel frame Centennials with identical Altamont combat grips. The 9mm's recoil,subjectively, felt more like magnums in a steel Centennial.

HHPN, due respect, but your memory is faulty. The 52 is as soft shooting as a pistol can be (you can watch the slide cycle very deliberately). It 'shuck-chucks' almost like a '97 Winchester pumpgun.
You are entirely correct about alloy J-frames snapping much more than 9mm autos; the action operating absorbs a deal of the energy. Comparing autos to revos introduces too many variables.


Matiqug, you are entirely correct about bore dwell time, and this is the downside to light-recoiling target ammunition. It makes follow-thru' really critical with these guns.
I could reopen the discussion of pistols describing an arc when they are discharged, but maybe not.

Moon
__________________
"There is nothing there but war
Hear the murderin' cannons roar
And they say that we must go
and fight for Lincoln..."
halfmoonclip is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   WaltherForums > Walther Firearms > Walther General Discussions

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.