Author Topic: Rifled Guns  (Read 7624 times)

DaveP (UK)

  • Guest
Rifled Guns
« on: February 08, 2014, 02:38:59 AM »
I offer you a link to an article of the above title from The Atlantic Monthly of October 1859. I think it will be of great interest to some of the participants in the on going thread about Rifle Accuracy  ;D
It consists of some thoughts about the Kentucky rifle and some practical comparisons of its accuracy with some of the other rifles of the time.
You can read on line, print off a copy or save to your hard drive. The pdf format is probably the most legible.

http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=atla;cc=atla;idno=atla0004-4;node=atla0004-4%3A5;view=pdf;seq=454;page=root;size=100

The article is made available by Making of America at Cornell University Library. I became aware of it when it was reprinted in the MLAGB journal Blackpowder last spring. Enjoy

Offline smylee grouch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7681
Re: Rifled Guns
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2014, 03:40:51 AM »
Thanks Dave. There is alot to learn yet on the subject and this info helps.

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifled Guns
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2014, 08:50:42 AM »
WOW......  I have never read that article before and found it EXTREMELY interesting, but I dare say as much for some of the wrong information and "proofs" as for the correct information supplied.  However, this article should give us LOADS of things to discuss.  GRIN. 

EVEN if the finest mechanical target sights then extant were applied to the New York rifles mentioned that supposedly could hit a turkey one time in three at 550 yards AND IF the shooter had extraordinarily good vision AND IF the rifle was held in the types of machine rest that were available to target shooters in the 1850's - hitting a target the size of a  turkey at that range 1 out of 3 times would only have been possible (if possible at all as a general rule) IF the shooter was a remarkable judge of wind - with a round ball rifle. 

What REALLY stood out in my mind was the Author's dismissal of Newton's Third Law of Motion!!  For crying out loud, Sir Isaac Newton (an ENGLISHMAN who the author should have had the greatest respect for and Nationalistic Pride in) had over 100 years before this article demonstrated that "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."  Maybe I read the author all wrong, but on at least two occasions in that article - it seemed the author was contending proof that JUST BECAUSE one increases the weight of the gun and the powder, caliber, rifling, patch and bullet and everything else remains the same - the bullet is going to have a higher velocity just because the gun is heavier??!!  Well, OK, I have to admit I've heard other myths that strange or stranger from some shooters over the years.  GRIN. 

There is a lot more to consider, but that's enough for tonight.
Gus

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifled Guns
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2014, 07:29:13 PM »
Before I go further, I realize I am assuming the author of this article is English.  Is that correct?  If not, he surely knew a huge amount about English gunsmiths, guns, rifling, etc.  and reads like he was English. 

I found it interesting the author of the article was advocating the rifle should weigh 10-12 lbs with a longer barrel (like an American Long Rifle) and much of that weight in the barrel. 

What I think the author was doing was mistaking the fact that heavier rifles had less FELT recoil and were thus easier to shoot well, when he claimed heavier rifles had higher velocities (in the same caliber and probably same powder charge).  (At the end of this post, I’m including a table of weights of rifles so folks may consider the weights of rifles before and after this time period, with which they may be familiar.)

The date of the Article, October 1859, is also very interesting for a number of reasons. 

IF the author was English, I am rather surprised he did not mention the Baker Rifle, in part because he did mention the military use of Longrifles and later military style projectile rifles.  He may have alluded to the Baker when he spoke about the problems of belted balls, but the Baker was also made with barrels for PRB’s and in that variation, served extremely well.  With the .62 caliber and better sights than normally found on American Longrifles and even though most Englishmen did not grow up hunting, they were as accurate with the Baker as most Americans were with the Longrifle.  (I personally do not believe we Americans issued a rifle that was as good as the Baker until at least the M1841 “Mississippi” Rifle and more likely the M 1855 Rifle.)

Perhaps it is the ignorance of the author showing that though he mentioned the Battle of New Orleans (and got a lot of it wrong) he did not mention the absolutely Stirling Duty done by the 95th Rifle Brigade fighting with The King’s German Legion that kept the French out of the La Haye Sainte Farmhouse for so long and so screwed up Napolean’s Battle Planning at Waterloo just 5 months after the Battle of New Orleans?  Of course, in 1859, there was not the amount of information available to people that we enjoy today. 

I have to apologize as I’m not feeling well today, so will have to continue later.
Gus



Weights of Rifles (in pounds)

PRB rifles
American Long Rifle,  8 to 10 
English Baker Rifle, 9
M 1817 “Common” Rifle, 9.3
Plains or Hawken Rifles,  10  to 15
M1841 “Mississippi” Rifle, 9.4

Conical Bullets aka “Minie’ Type”
P 1853  (3 Band) Enfield Rifle Musket,  9.5
M 1855 (2 Band) Rifle,  8.5 plus
M 1855 (3 Band) Rifle Musket,  9

Modern Cartridges
M1903 Rifle, 8 ½ to a little over 9
M1 Garand,   9.5 empty to 11.5 loaded
M14, 9.2 empty to 11.6 loaded
M16, 7.2 (for A1)  to 7.9 (for A2) empty add 1.6 for loaded

DaveP (UK)

  • Guest
Re: Rifled Guns
« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2014, 05:57:11 PM »
Actually I think it's pretty clear that the author is American,  and pretty partisan too. You could criticise him for being stuck in the past, but I think his points about the importance of the training of the rifleman and the relative unimportance of being able to shoot beyond the range of vision have some validity. I think I'm correct in saying that at about the time of writing the chain of decisions that led to the adoption of the bolt action rifle was just beginning - and its only thanks to a narrow vote and the swift development of the magazine lock that Tommy Atkins didn't march into the trenches with a single shot rifle so as to prevent waste of ammunition
The writers knowledge of English rifle development would be easily explained if he spent any time in England or even read English newspapers regularly as the overall proceedings of the Board of Ordnance were anything but secret, and were often the subject of public debate, as in the letter columns of the Times.
Have you ever read From the Earth to the Moon by Jules Verne? The Baltimore gun Club had its English counterparts!

I think you'll find the belted ball related to the Brunswick rifle, which started to replace the Baker in 1837: http://firearmshistory.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/rifling-brunswick-rifle.html

Offline halfstock

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Rifled Guns
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2014, 08:34:13 PM »
To me a lot of the arguments of old rifle weights being a hindrance to modern riflemen are refuted in this, most are equivilant (sp) or modern is greater ???????

Offline Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15085
Re: Rifled Guns
« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2014, 08:22:17 PM »
"the bullet is going to have a higher velocity just because the gun is heavier??!"

Quite possibly true - technically speaking? - as in the difference of rearward recoil speed between a light rifle and a heavy one. The heavier rifle, recoiling slower would/should add that speed to the round ball - however that added speed would amount to much less than 2fps if it was possible to measure it.  Even then, the difference would be swallowed up by normal shot to shot variation, certainly nothing of value- but- that isn't the question as I see it - is it possible?

Of course, this difference in speed due to recoil speed could only 'tell' or be effected if the 'shot' or ball was still in the barrel while the gun was recoiling.   In modern guns or guns firing in excess of 2,000fps or even perhaps slower, the projectile is outside the barrel before the gun even starts recoiling thus, the recoil speed would/could have no effect on the projectile's speed.  

Now, with a gun of low enough velocity that that projectile was still inside the barrel as the gun recoiled, what was it's position inside the barrel?  It's position and speed would dictate the time span remaining while it was inside the bore for the gun's rearward recoiling speed to actually effect it's forward speed - what was the difference in rearward movement between the time of the ball's ejection from the light gun, compared to it's ejection from the heavy gun.  We are assuming the barrels are of equal length?  I'm sure this topic of wonderment will keep the statisticians & ballisticians working long hours, being it's such a worthwhile puzzle to piece together?

So - technically speaking, it is possible - probability - maybe - in low velocity rounds? Worthwhile - HA!

yeah - it's cold out side and I'm bored.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 08:38:05 PM by Daryl »
Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a spaniel without ears" King George V

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifled Guns
« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2014, 08:45:44 PM »
Daryl,

To me, the scary thing is that I followed what you wrote.  :D

I am not sure physics supports the notion that even a tiny increase in velocity would be gained by the heavier rifle.  Even if the rifle doesn't recoil quite as much to the rear, the amount of  gas propelling the bullet doesn't change and the bullet might exit a tiny bit forward of the point than it would have in a lighter gun as the lighter gun MAY move the shooter or the shoulder back a bit further in recoil.  

Still, whether there is a tiny increase in velocity or not, the notion a heavier gun would cause a significant velocity increase did not stand up then as now.  Grin.
Gus
« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 09:29:54 PM by Artificer »

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifled Guns
« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2014, 09:28:47 PM »
Dave,

You may be right the author was an American and if so, he was highly partisan as well as being downright wrong about some things.  We can not properly learn the lessons of history if we do not know as much of the truth of it as possible.

Yes, I should have thought of the Brunswick Rifle as well for the belted ball.  I’ve handled three or four original ones, though I’ve never fired one.

Besides the points you mention the author got right, I would also include the value he placed on those Americans who grew up hunting and shooting compared to the experience of the common British Soldier prior to his induction into the Armed Forces in the 18th and 19th century.  Even if the American was not a good shot and not an extremely skilled hunter when he joined the military, at least he usually did not have to be trained on the basics of safe gun handling.   
Gus

PS.  I instantly caught your mention of Tommy Atkins as many of us who are Viet Nam Era veterans or Career Armed Forces Members still find great value in the fact that Tommy Atkins was first described by the Duke of Wellington as the common name for English Soldiers, and who paid such a terrible price in WWI , as well as Rudyard Kipling’s famous poem.  We share a special kinship with “Tommy.”

“The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck 'im out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!”
Rudyard Kipling
http://www.uea.ac.uk/menu/acad_depts/edu/learn/braysher/tommy.htm



Offline smylee grouch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7681
Re: Rifled Guns
« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2014, 04:06:10 AM »
Would it be posible to test that theroy about heavey guns shooting faster by shooting a series of shots over the crono with say a real heavy gun then taking the barrel and reduce the mass by tappering it and shooting the same series of shots with the same load? I would volenter the range, crono, powder and ball is someone else would have the right gun and machine capabilities.

DaveP (UK)

  • Guest
Re: Rifled Guns
« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2014, 06:29:54 PM »
I think it might be cheaper to bolt a barrel to a steel bar and then start sawing it away  ;D but I honestly doubt that an every day chrono would be able to detect the tiny changes involved.
The schoolbook mechanics is straightforward.
At the moment of firing, the charge exerts the same pressure in all directions. Pressure against the rear of the ball causes it to accelerate down the barrel at a rate proportional to the applied force and inversely proportional to its mass. The same considerations apply to the face of the breech, but the direction is opposite, and the mass is the mass of the entire gun, and possibly part of the shooters mass too!
 A heavier gun would clearly accelerate more slowly, and would be described as having a milder recoil. This could make a big difference to the shooter but only a small one to the projectile. The only difference the ball would "see" would be that instead of the barrel wall heading the other way at X inches per second per second it would be doing (X minus a tad) per s per s. This would reduce the severity of any micro impacts with bore surface irregularities. In loose terms you could talk about less friction, but only a tiny bit less, and only for the transit time.
Theoretically the ball should be travelling a bit faster, but I reckon you'd need some pretty special kit to measure the difference, and almost certainly  a long series of trials. If you need a relief operator I might be available...

Offline Bill Paton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 410
Re: Rifled Guns
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2014, 08:38:52 PM »
How do "shaped charges" and breech plug shape play into this discussion? Bill Paton
Kentucky double rifle student
wapaton.sr@gmail.com

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifled Guns
« Reply #12 on: February 14, 2014, 10:11:05 PM »
I found it quite interesting that in October of 1859, the author completely missed the fact that the Kentucky rifle had been surpassed in range and accuracy by the Plains Rifles, including but not limited to the Hawken Rifles. 

Though Plains rifles were of normally heavier caliber than at least some of the Kentucky rifles, the barrels and the entire weight of the gun were normally heavier than the Kentucky.  Hawken barrels averaged at about 38-39 inches though some made as long as 44 inches?  If that’s true, then they were not hugely shorter than Kentucky Rifle barrels and the improvements in making powder made the longer length barrels no longer necessary.  If the author’s “fact” that heavier rifles added velocity to the ball, then the Plains Rifles had it all over the Kentucky for that reason alone. 

The author does bring up a good point about the ability to hit a target at long range depended greatly on how well the target could be seen.  However, the force of wind on a PRB causes more windage errors than on a “sugar loaf” elongated bullet.  So even if the shooter can see his target clearly at long range and had/has excellent target sights, he had/has to contend with windage misses more with a PRB at long range. 

Were “Mountain Men” better shots than earlier generations of those who used the Kentucky rifle?  Probably not on average in my opinion.  Instead, they had a better rifle for long range and had more practice in shooting at longer ranges, IMO. 

The author contends what a rifle should be starting at the last paragraph in the article’s page 449 and the first paragraph on page 450.  He  calls for a barrel “not shorter than 30 inches” and “open or hunting and globe and peek sights.”  I must be missing something on the conversion of caliber to “gauge” as the author calls for a caliber of “ ninety to sixty gauge.”  That would seem to be calibers from about .430 down to .383 and does not follow his writing that heavier balls produce better long range accuracy?    He also calls for a “gain twist” in the rifling.  I know original Cap and Ball Colt and Remington Revolvers had a gain twist before they switched to standard rifling with cartridge model revolvers.  I do not know if gain twist would have made a great improvement in accuracy with a muzzle loading rifle.

Gus

doug

  • Guest
Re: Rifled Guns
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2014, 02:04:00 AM »
     I have only read the first page so far but what did not seem to me to be commented on much was that the american shooters shot from behind shelter while presumably the british soldiers were out in the open.   I think the british at that time (and for quite a few years into the future) felt that it was unmanly or unsporting to fight a defensive war.  They along with many european armies seemed to feel that an army should march in close formation into the gun fire, fire one or two volleys and then charge with fixed bayonets.  Seems a stupid way of fighting to my way of thinking sort of evolution in action if your enemy is hidden behind barricades and presents little exposed body to be struck by a bullet

cheers Doug

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifled Guns
« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2014, 08:23:01 PM »
At New Orleans, the British Veterans of the Napoleonic Wars had every expectation of success as they had taken much, MUCH stronger defenses than those the Americans hastily threw up.  Though not always successful, “Forlorn Hopes” had been a hallmark of British Victory in the Peninsular Campaign of 1800 – 1814.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forlorn_hope

To this day, even many of the few Americans who know of this battle, often think of it as a victory of American Riflemen over British Infantry and perhaps as a more modern extension and more successful conclusion of the Battle of Breed’s (Bunker) Hill of the previous Revolutionary War (with Musket Armed Soldiers).  American Propaganda of the time still gives us the wrong impression of the battle.

1.  Use of Riflemen.  Out of Jackson’s 2,000 Kentuckians, TWO THIRDS of them showed up in New Orleans without ANY firearms and were issued old guns from the City’s resources that were not in good order (NOT Rifles).  One unit of American Riflemen were actually from Orleans, a company of  Beale’s Rifles,  and did participate in throwing the British Back on the American Right along with REGULAR American Artillery, some Companies of the 7th US Regulars, about 58 U.S. Marines, a Sloop of War (usually mistakenly called a Frigate) on the river providing more artillery fire and other American forces.  However, the British had a Battalion of the 95th Rifles with them and thus may/probably had close to or as many Riflemen as had the Americans.

2. Out of Jackson’s 5,000 to 6,000 man Army, about a thousand were U.S. Army (Infantry and Artillery) around 986, 106 Navy and 58 Marine REGULARS.   They did yeoman service in the battle as a foundation of disciplined forces, so the battle was not just “citizen soldiers” against British Regulars. 

3.  Original accounts from both American and British sources have clearly stated most casualties on both sides came from Artillery Fire.  In skirmishes prior to the final battle of 8 January, British Artillery had “silenced” American Artillery and the British had captured some American Guns (Artillery).  During the final battle, American Artillery in entrenched positions silenced the few British Guns brought up and did far more damage than American Musketry or Rifle fire. 

4. The British Commander, General Packenham (a Veteran of the Peninsular Wars) made a huge mistake by not landing more British Troops for the Battle from those still aboard ships.  “Pack” had about 8,000 British altogether and thus outnumbered the American Army of 5-6,000, but did not want to wait for more forces to land.  The mistake there was if one wants to ensure they are going to be able to take an entrenched enemy defensive position, one has to have at least two to three times as many forces as the Defenders.   

5. The British did NOT advance or charge “High Diddle Diddle, straight up the Middle” as is often related in historic propaganda and myth during the final battle.  They attacked in two columns, one each on the American’s “Right and Left” in an attempt to “turn the American Line.”  This was normal battle strategy for the time and often, if not usually worked  However, the American position was “anchored” by a river on the right with a Sloop on river firing Artillery into the British and a swamp on the American Left. 

6. The leading British Regiment that was supposed to bring scaling ladders to get into the American Defenses on the American right, forgot or left the scaling ladders behind.  BAD move there. 

7. The British attack on the American Left was somewhat more successful, BUT was stopped in the ditches.  When the 93rd Highlanders were sent across the Battlefield in support, their senior Officers were killed when they halted to reform prior to a charge.  With no further orders, they stood their ground and got tore up by American Artillery fire.

8. The British Commanding General Pakenham and his second in Command, General Gibbs, were killed by American Artillery Grapeshot.  Many if not most of the Senior British Officers had been killed.  Finally the British General Lambert assumed command and though some success had been made by Royal Navy and Marine Forces breaking a part of the American Line, Lambert did not have the 2,000 troops necessary to follow up and with the defeat of the main Army, was forced to withdraw. 

9. At the end of the Battle, the British had lost over 2,000 men while the Americans had lost only 71 of dead, wounded or missing (captured).  Thus the British no longer had sufficient forces to overwhelm the Americans and eventually sailed off after General Lambert and his surviving Commanders concluded further action would be too costly.

10.  It has often been suggested the Battle of New Orleans was unnecessary as the Treaty of Ghent had been signed and the war was already “over.”  The British Parliament had agreed to the Treaty, but the American Senate had not, so we were still “officially” at War for several months more until the Senate ratified the Treaty.  Had the British won the Battle of New Orleans and especially if that had encouraged the Spanish to re-stake their claims in the area as the British intended, it could have severely limited westward expansion of the U.S. for some time.  Instead, the Battle stopped that from happening and led to many years of Foreign Powers “staying out of our business” for the most part and certainly to that great of a degree.

Now of course the British could have made all these mistakes and more and still won the Battle and taken New Orleans, if they had gone up against a lesser Commander than Andrew Jackson and probably had Jackson not had the Regulars and other forces he did.  Jackson’s will was so fierce that he turned around the near state of panic the Citizens of New Orleans were in shortly after he arrived.  Jackson’s choice of the Battlefield and defensive works was a huge key to their success.  The U.S. Army’s Regular Artillery supplied the nerve and ability to use the Artillery so effectively.  The discipline of other Regular Army, Navy and Marine forces bolstered the line and protected the Artillery so they could do their job, as well as serve as inspiration to hold the position.  Jackson’s Kentuckians had come down to make a fight and they certainly did.  The other Militia forces seem to have fought well, also, including those from New Orleans who were protecting their homes.  Still, the Battle was not won by American Riflemen fighting off British Infantry as the Myth and propaganda suggested.  There is no doubt that American Riflemen did well that day, but Jackson and the U.S. Artillery did more to win the battle than anything else.
Gus

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifled Guns
« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2014, 02:18:19 AM »
Would it be posible to test that theroy about heavey guns shooting faster by shooting a series of shots over the crono with say a real heavy gun then taking the barrel and reduce the mass by tappering it and shooting the same series of shots with the same load? I would volenter the range, crono, powder and ball is someone else would have the right gun and machine capabilities.

I've been thinking about this for a few days.  Grin.

IF the theory that a heavier rifle will cause higher velocity is true, then it does not have to be just the barrel that is heavier.  One could pad and tape on lead weights to a rifle in increasing amounts and test the theory.  That would not cause permanent damage to the barrel or the rifle for that matter.

Gus

Offline Bill Paton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 410
Re: Rifled Guns
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2014, 04:05:04 AM »


IF the theory that a heavier rifle will cause higher velocity is true, then it does not have to be just the barrel that is heavier.  One could pad and tape on lead weights to a rifle in increasing amounts and test the theory.  That would not cause permanent damage to the barrel or the rifle for that matter.

Gus
[/quote]
Or chrono your rifle before and after resting the butt plate against an immovable brick wall. That would prevent the barrel from recoiling almost completely and make the gun in effect be infinitely heavy.
Kentucky double rifle student
wapaton.sr@gmail.com

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifled Guns
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2014, 09:00:44 AM »
Bill,

My High School Physics Teacher would be proud I followed Daryl's earlier post and your post directly above.  Grin. 

Not sure putting the rifle butt against a solid wall to simulate an infinitely heavy rifle, though.  I'm wondering if that might cause the barrel tang to crack the stock, because there is no "give" that way under recoil?

The super expensive rifle "testing racks" we had at Quantico, VA to test the accuracy of NM and Sniper Rifles may be as close as one could get and not damage the rifle.  We "bolted" the rifles (using special pads) into extremely heavy carriages that slid in precision tracks under recoil a few inches before coming to a stop.  We had to forcefully push them back into place for the next shot.  Though very heavy, I don't think those carriages weighed quite as much as a man, but more weight could have been added to them to test the theory.  Unfortunately, since I retired, I can no longer do that.
Gus 


Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9758
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Rifled Guns
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2014, 05:09:02 PM »
Chances are the bullet clears the muzzle before much movement occurs anyway at least in anything with a modern length barrel.
Though shooting a lighter bullet at higher velocity in a handgun like an SA Colt will lower the impact point since it get out a little faster. This why long barreled SA Colts have higher front sights. But a handgun is not a rifle and the difference is not that great given the movement of the gun in full recoil.
Recoil or gas operated Semi-Autos need to have the bullet out the barrel before the action unlocks and the bolt moves and without a buffer semis of any sort will cycle EXTREMELY fast if something is not right. Even a Garand with its long op rod etc and in 30-06 can fire faster than the hear can hear in a slam fire, yeah I had one that would do this with soft primers. This is something the that could be tried out in a lead sled or some such.
If someone was that interested. I doubt that any significant difference could be detected with a chronograph.

Dan
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 05:13:25 PM by Dphariss »
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifled Guns
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2014, 10:49:21 PM »
I know enough about the "Gas Laws" to be dangerous, but certainly am no expert.  Grin.  Still, since the burning powder produces gas that actually drives the PRBall forward and the Gas Laws state the gas will expand with equal force in all directions, recoil actually begins shortly before or the same time the ball begins moving. 

Since the PRB is only in the barrel for microseconds, we can not feel recoil as quickly as it begins - only when it applies enough pressure on our shoulder (or arm with a crescent shaped buttplate) and our bodies send electrical impulses to the brain telling us about it. 

To give an idea of how fast gas expansion force works, the gas port in the barrel of an M1 Garand is very near the muzzle.  As soon a the bullet leaves the muzzle, the gas pressure goes down to almost nothing very quickly as there is no gas seal in the barrel.  Yet there is plenty of gas pressure/force to operate the action before the Bullet leaves the barrel muzzle.  Further, the muzzle can be cut backwards and the rifle will still function properly.  I have cut .100" off the front end of a Garand barrel and others have cut off even more, with no loss of function at all. 
Gus