>mfw someone says a gun is "snappy"
How would you describe it?>"Yeah, the muzzle flip is stronger bro"
>>62460024I prefer my firearms to be both peppy and have a wooden handle I can carve notches in.
>>62460087It's got a heckuva kick
>>62460099Real gunslingers have Hubble telescopes on their revolvers.
>>62460024I have autistic hangups on certain phrases and words too
>mfw someone says a gun is comfey
>>62460024it sounds a lot better than>this gun's recoil velocity is unusually high
sometimes my guns are uppity
>>62460024>a gunHandgun,correct?are rifles 'snappy'
>>62460667Some more than others, sure. Self-loading rifles in particular can have more or less of a "kick" depending on how their recoil systems are tuned. Try minimizing the buffer weight/spring tension in an AR and tell me it isn't more "snappy" than if you had it right on the edge of short stroking.
>>62460024Deal with it, junior. Three more years and you can legally own one.
>>62460024>mfw truck gun
>>62460024>>62461239>mfw "just as good" when comparing turkshit to a M4
>>62460667>are rifles 'snappy'Kinda funny now that you mention it, though also makes sense, I've never heard of that adjective being used for handguns. I guess because it's describing an actual physical effect, because nearly all handguns have the bore above body contact (hand) they have a rotational effect and thus tend to snap your hand/arms up, whereas with rifles it tends to get described as kick, like something kicking you in the shoulder. Same idea either way, it's just describing how strong the impulse is, but different adjectives.
>>62461061yeah I don't think>'kick'and >'snappy'are interchangeable/exactly the same.as another anon ^^suggested, 'snap' refers to the rapidity, or "speed", of a gun's recoil impulse.'kick' is in reference to the overall magnitude of its recoil.Handguns (for example) a pistol in .40 S&W has more 'snap' than, say by comparison, a .45 ACP which has more of a 'kick'(the AR buffer you mentioned) That's more 'kick'-y
>>62460667It's funny, because most handguns will have worse recoil than most rifles despite using relatively weaker cartridges. I think it's just a difference in expectations.
>>62461061IMHO "snappy" is more specific than saying a gun has a lot of kick. .50 AE and big boy revolver cartriges are definately hard recoiling, and it would be totally normal to say they "kick hard", but nobody would say that a Deagle or an X-frame is "snappy". Snappy specifically refers to a sharp recoil impluse, it goes hand-in-hand with lightweight guns. Things like airweight revolvers, or polymer frame subcompacts might be called snappy.
>>62461286this.Kick = recoil energySnap = recoil velocityOnline recoil calculators or comparison charts like Chuck Hawk's recoil tables will list both.
>>62461300In strictly mathematical terms, the recoil energy of most handgun calibers will always be less than that of most rifle calibers, but the effects are of course more pronounced as you decrease weight and remove points of contact between the shooter and the gun; that's exactly why pistol stocks/flux braces are a thing.
>>62460112its a shame silver and gloss black scopes are so rare these days
>>62461348Well yeah, that's why recoil is often describes as "felt recoil". You're TECHNICALLY correct in that rifle calibers will produce more recoil than handgun calibers (for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction .etc.etc) but a rifle obviously has more mass, so the same forces are spread out over a larger area, thus you feel the recoil less.
> mfw "sporterized"
>>62461332>>62461348>>62461383right, and we tend to notice the 'kick' vs. 'snap' differences more so in handguns than in rifles, because rifle recoil is largely inline with the shoulder; a pistol otoh has its bore axis above the hand so the flip rotational motion is perceived, discerned and felt to a greater degree than with a rifleapplies to no matter what caliberrecoil magnitude in each.Now, in full auto the 'flip' and climb is more pronounced even in shoulder fired arms but that's a new combination dynamic (compared to single shots)
>>62461383I think "recoil" in the common casual parlance is not momentum but rather force, which is a function of change in momentum over change in time. So yeah, affected by the mass of the gun and brake (and rarely if there is anything else that increases the time part of the equation like if it's long action). Though it's true "felt recoil" is sometimes used to try to differentiate a bit and include other factors like to what extent there is an angular component or not.
>>62461383if you want to talk "technically correct", recoil is not one thing. There are two mathematical components to it: energy and velocity. Any recoil calculator will show you both numbers. As far as "felt recoil" goes, there are many other variables affecting that: whether the gun has a stock or not, bore axis height, the shape of grips and stock butts, some action types can affect recoil..
>looking for a new range>ask the range master if their range is creepy or wet>he doesn't understand [pull out illustrated diagram explaining what is creepy and what is wet>he laughs and says "it's a good range sir">buy a range membership>its wet
>>62461303I always felt like “snappy” was how to describe the action cycling… a 50 ae eagle is a lot “snappier” than the 357 eagle which feels like it’s cycling almost lazily…
>>62461365Silver scopes going extinct I could see, gloss black scopes becoming faux pas still baffles me. If it's due to the wants of current gun owners, I hate current gun owners.
>>62461474>current gun owners.That's exactly what it is. Matte tacticool is in. I think part of has to do with the decline in classic blued guns as well. High polish blue is an expensive finish compared to the various alternatives so you rarely see it outside of high end sporting guns. With guns like that being less common there is less demand for matching scopes.
>>62461286this
>>62461457>he doesn't enjoy cave rangesshiggy
>>62461449>if you want to talk "technically correct", recoil is not one thingnta, but yeah it basically is. Recoil is impulse, J=integral(F dt), that's what you're experiencing on your body and then transferring into the ground. Energy has nothing to do with it, momentum is mass times velocity whereas the kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2.
>>62461530type less and go look at the equations on a recoil calculator.
>>62460024>>62460089Tokerevs and Broomhandles are 'snappy' and anything else is a misuse of the term.
>>62460024What about zesty? Spicy? I dun no bout yu but I be always puttin a dash o dat lawrys on dem boolits
>>62461636Nigga u zesty fr fr, id hit tho
>>62460024What's the matter, you don't know how to be objective? "It's fine" huh, as if lower recoil isn't objectively desirable across the board?
>>62461578go back to high school physics and pay attention this time
>>62461457>having to wear a new tyvek suit each time I go to the damp range
>>62461442It's impulse.Distance, Speed, Acceleration, Impulse.
>>62461530Oh hey, somebody else said it before I did.
>>62461457post diagram
