Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Felt Recoil

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Springfield Missouri
    Posts
    139

    Default Felt Recoil

    I was wondering about felt recoil, In another thread Murphy was talking about 416 remington and a 416 rigsby if they both had the same weight rifle, same length barrel, same case, same powder, same powder charge and same powder charge the recoil would be very similar. This is a true statement.

    My question is what stock has the least felt recoil. I have shot many rifles, but some stocks just seem to have more felt recoil. So what stock out there has the least amount of felt recoil.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by barko View Post
    I was wondering about felt recoil, In another thread Murphy was talking about 416 remington and a 416 rigsby if they both had the same weight rifle, same length barrel, same case, same powder, same powder charge and same powder charge the recoil would be very similar. This is a true statement.

    My question is what stock has the least felt recoil. I have shot many rifles, but some stocks just seem to have more felt recoil. So what stock out there has the least amount of felt recoil.

    In bold you have answered your own question. Because this is a subjective quality, you will not be able to find the answer, as there will be many opinions, all based on what the user qualifies as "felt recoil". Some think a .30'06 recoils hard. Some think that cartridge is not a hard recoiling. So....

    I'll give you an example. Some years ago on Accuratereloading.com, there was a big discussion about Hg recoil reducers and if they actually reduce recoil. I was taking physics at the time at UAF so I decided to calculate what, if any, reduction occurred. It was in the 6th or 7th decimal place, utterly insignificant. BUT what is happening is called an elastic collision: the liquid Hg is free to roll in the metal tube it is contained within. So when the rifle begins movving backwards, the blob of liquid stays in place until the end of the tube hits it. This is the collision. At the beginning of the rifles movement, the coil is heavier, then suddenly slows when it hits the 8 ounce blob of Hg. It is that slowing in recoil velocity that tricks the brain into thinking the recoil is softer, when actually the intitial movement is quite a bit faster and harder. I will try to look up the Excel file and post the calculation tonight when I get home from the office.
    Last edited by Nitroman; 05-08-2007 at 11:18. Reason: I just remembered

  3. #3

    Talking Straight stock

    Quote Originally Posted by barko View Post
    I was wondering about felt recoil, In another thread Murphy was talking about 416 remington and a 416 rigsby if they both had the same weight rifle, same length barrel, same case, same powder, same powder charge and same powder charge the recoil would be very similar. This is a true statement.

    My question is what stock has the least felt recoil. I have shot many rifles, but some stocks just seem to have more felt recoil. So what stock out there has the least amount of felt recoil.
    I personally find that the straight stock design has less felt recoil. Not that it has less, but recoil is straight back, instead of back AND up. I think that's why the old 30-30 kicked like a mule with the drop stock and some muzzleloaders do too. My Rem 25-06 seems more violent than my straight stocked 8mm mag. And of course, a heavier barrel also helps.

  4. #4
    Moderator Paul H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    5,594

    Default

    There is alot to fealt recoil. To the question of the 416 Rem vs Rigby, with guns of the same weight, same bullet and same powder charge, the rem will recoil more because it's smaller case will achieve a higher velocity than the Rigby. Loaded to the same velocity, the Rigby will recoil more because it will require more powder to achieve the same velocity, as it is a much larger case than the rem.

    I've even found how the type of powder you use can dramatically affect the fealt recoil, and I never would have suspected it if I hadn't personally fealt it. Rifle, 350 rigby mag, loads 250 gr hornady over 66 gr Varget and 72 gr H4350, both clocking 2700 fps on the nose. The 4350 load had dramatically more recoil because the recoil pulse occurred later and the rifle rolled more and the cheekpiece slapped the crap out of me.

    I agree that for me, stocks with less drop are more pleasant to shoot with the big recoilers. I don't mind the straight back recoil, but when the rifle rotates and my cheek get's slapped, I don't enjoy it at all. Also, a large butstock and and hence recoil pad will spread the recoil over a greater area of your shoulder. Also, use a past mag recoil pad on your shoulder for range sessions.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nitroman View Post
    In bold you have answered your own question. Because this is a subjective quality, you will not be able to find the answer, as there will be many opinions, all based on what the user qualifies as "felt recoil". Some think a .30'06 recoils hard. Some think that cartridge is not a hard recoiling. So....

    I'll give you an example. Some years ago on Accuratereloading.com, there was a big discussion about Hg recoil reducers and if they actually reduce recoil. I was taking physics at the time at UAF so I decided to calculate what, if any, reduction occurred. It was in the 6th or 7th decimal place, utterly insignificant. BUT what is happening is called an inelastic collision: the liquid Hg is free to roll in the metal tube it is contained within. So when the rifle begins movving backwards, the blob of liquid stays in place until the end of the tube hits it. This is the collision. At the beginning of the rifles movement, the coil is heavier, then suddenly slows when it hits the 8 ounce blob of Hg. It is that slowing in recoil velocity that tricks the brain into thinking the recoil is softer, when actually the intitial movement is quite a bit faster and harder. I will try to look up the Excel file and post the calculation tonight when I get home from the office.
    Wow. I just found out there is a very short time limit for editing a post. I meant inelastic collision...

  6. #6

    Default

    Paul H. said that in his 350 Rigby, the faster powder that required a smaller charge to achieve a given velocity recoiled less than the slower powder that required a bigger charge to achieve the same velocity.

    I've always wondered- is this true across the board? Between two loads that both achieve the same velocity with the same bullet, will the one that requires the least powder kick less?

  7. #7
    Moderator Paul H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    5,594

    Default

    I think in the case of where you want straight back recoil, yes the slower powder will have more fealt recoil, I also had a similar experience with my 458 Lott, 87 gr of RL 15 produced 2280 fps with 500 gr bullets, 90+ gr of VV N550 never broke 2200 fps, but had the worst recoil of any load I fired from that gun.

    On the other hand, with handguns, which I prefer to roll in recoil, I'll take a slower powder. I load both Lil gun and H-110 in my 480 over 400 gr bullets, both achieve 1200 fps, yet Lil gun burns a bit faster, and has more of a stinging recoil. Not a major difference, but you can feel it. When you go to an even faster powder like 2400, and the velocity drops to 1100 fps, the recoil is still nasty because the gun becomes very whippy, ie rolls much faster.

    Asside from all that, I try to concentrate on how to deal with recoil rather than over analysing it. If you want to fire a given chambering, even a very large one, the biggest key is the desire to do so, and methodically telling yourself the gun won't hurt you, and practicing in limited shooting sessions to re-inforce that. I never fired more than 10 rounds of full patch out of my 458 Lott during a lunchtime range session, and I never flinched.

    The worst thing is having your mind made up you're going to burn X number of rounds through the gun in a session. If you get to 1/2X of ammo burned and just aren't up to firing off the rest, save them for another day! If you push yourself to finish up the box and achieve a flinch, it'll take 100X rounds to get rid of the flinch. Trust me, I did that with a 44 mag and ever since have had to fight handgun flinch. Suprisingly rifles don't bother me. Mostly because I was never foolish enough to do the same.

  8. #8

    Default

    Okay the plain & simple truth is the WEATHERBY MARK V stock as shown below is the BEST at eating recoil.



    If there is one expert in the field of stock design to lower felt recoil Weatherby is KING IMO.
    Over the years they have designed & worked out the EXACT lines needed to tame recoil.

    A classic example is the 378Wby,you will not get another preduction rifle that recoils as HARD/SHARP as this thumper!
    Before I go on,IMO there is two types of recoil in the bigger cal's.
    Example 1 =340Wby is a sharp hit,378Wby the same,338WM the same.
    Example 2 = 375H&H a push,9.3x62 the same,35 Whelen the same.

    So as you can see recoil differs from one cal to the next.And as we all know rifle weight/Powder gn's/projectile weight also play a part.

    My old 308W Montana had a very well designed stock,as it soaked up recoil.
    Bench shooting was pleasant & never an issue.
    Where my Old Sako I had seemed to slap me up the chops,leaving me flinching after 20+ rounds.

    My 340Wby was firm but pleasant off the bench,but like I said Weatherby are the masters in eating recoil in stock design.
    An comparing my friends 338WM Browning A-bolt(Stock filled with lead),my 340Wby was much sweeter off the shoulder.

    The 378Wby was stout & this rifle has bitten 3 men to my knowledge,but when held right it isn't an issue.

    Cz 550 9.3x62 with a hogsback stock handled(Push) very nice indeed,& one design I was unshore off before playing with it.Thumbs up.

    By far one of the best handling rifles I have had the pleasure of shooting was the Remington XCR 375H&H(Mind you I still wouldn't buy one as I'm not a Remington fan).
    This rifle is lighter than the factory spec's weighing 8lbs scoped & field ready.Mind you these rifles do have a Sims's Limbsaver which do an amazing job of soaking up recoil.And IMO they are one of the best in the business at doing so.Pachymar are also sweet it's just Sims do soak it up better IMO.
    I will also say I still prefer the Pachymar over the Sim's Grind n fit design,as I find the Sim's Grind n Fit a bit sticky/tacky compared to there excellent pre-fit style which IMO is in another league.
    The more I play with 375H&H the more I can see why this cal has SHINED for nearly a century.It's just so pleasant to shoot,even in a light out-fit no sweat.

    Just my 2cents,

    340.


    PS-We will see how the Montana stock will handle 338WM recoil .
    Have a feeling Kimber has a solid design.

  9. #9

    Talking Agree Paul

    You made some very valid points. I think when we push it with heavy recoil, we just learn to deal with and don't make it a mental hangup. Using a extra shoulder pad goes a long way in helping, and not making a marathon session out of the shooting. Most don't even feel the slightest amount when shooting at game...the trick is not to let it get started in the first place. I've shot lots of 31/2 12 ga mag shells at geese and never ever had a problem, but patterning the same gun, it was like getting hit with a baseball bat in the shoulder. That's quite an amazing phenonenom, and I'd say it's all mental to a point. Thanks, ciao.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maydog View Post
    I think when we push it with heavy recoil, we just learn to deal with and don't make it a mental hangup. Using a extra shoulder pad goes a long way in helping, and not making a marathon session out of the shooting. Most don't even feel the slightest amount when shooting at game...the trick is not to let it get started in the first place. I've shot lots of 31/2 12 ga mag shells at geese and never ever had a problem, but patterning the same gun, it was like getting hit with a baseball bat in the shoulder. That's quite an amazing phenonenom, and I'd say it's all mental to a point. Thanks, ciao.
    How very true.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    8,815

    Default

    Things that make for less felt recoil are a heavier rifle, longer barrel, wider butt plate, and a softer recoil pad.

    You can reduce recoil by using a lighter bullet or burning less powder too.

    It also helps me to have my neck and shoulder more upright, not leaning into, or scrunching down to see through a scope on a “straight back”, or Classic style gun stock.

    I’ll qualify my opinion by saying I don’t shoot anything bigger than a 338 WM, but I find that a stock that has a comb, and a cheek pad to be easier on me.

    I agree wholeheartedly, with 340Wby, in that the Weatherby is the best design, hands down.

    Smitty of the North

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maydog View Post
    I think that's why the old 30-30 kicked like a mule with the drop stock and some muzzleloaders do too.
    My 30-30 with a pistol grip, (or drop stock) seems to kicks more than my .45-70 with a straight stock using standard loads.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Here you go:

    This shows the affect a little cast off and a stock designed for offhand shooting has on the force coming back at'cha. To make it simple I used 100ft/lbs. for the recoil.
    Again, what "felt" recoil is, is in the mind. That's only my opinion of course.

  14. #14

    Default

    I had heard before that Dakota stocks were the best at eating recoil... has anybody here compared the Weatherby Mk.V stock to the Dakota?

    I'd be very interested for future reference- when I get to building a big-bore.

  15. #15
    Member Darreld Walton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Arco, Idaho
    Posts
    782

    Default Without a doubt...

    The stock most effective at reducing felt recoil from a shoulder fired weapon is that found on an M79 grenade launcher.
    The most basic rule of thumb for reducing felt or perceived recoil from a rifle is to have the comb and heel of the stock as close to or above the centerline of the bore. The more drop, the more recoil you'll feel.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  16. #16
    Member Darreld Walton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Arco, Idaho
    Posts
    782

    Default P.s.

    Stocks that are too long or too short also hammer the bejeebers out of me.
    I have two Model 70 CRF Classic stainless rifles. One a .300 Winchester, the other a 7mm Remington mag. The stock on the .300 has been cut 1", a new pad installed, for a total shortening effect of 1 1/2". Not only does the .300 come up much faster than the unmodified 7mm, even with fast stepping 180's, 200's and 220's, the felt recoil is less than 150's in the 7mm.
    Switching the stock between the two rifles reverses the impression of recoil I get from each rifle. Felt recoil with the .300 is bearable but noticeable, the 7mm feels more like my Husqvarna .270.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nitroman View Post
    Here you go:

    This shows the affect a little cast off and a stock designed for offhand shooting has on the force coming back at'cha. To make it simple I used 100ft/lbs. for the recoil.
    Again, what "felt" recoil is, is in the mind. That's only my opinion of course.
    good illustration Nitro, help me out with the reduced felt recoil of my Mk V with a Banzer muzzle brake in comparison to my Ruger #1 that I would not dare want to shoot the 240gr bullet in it. Is it the muzzle brake and the MKV stock or what???? All so would you take the time to define the effect of the muzzle brake on felt recoil. thanks
    A GUN WRITER NEEDS:
    THE MIND OF A SCHOLAR
    THE HEART OF A CHILD
    THE HIDE OF A RHINOCEROS

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beartooth View Post
    good illustration Nitro, help me out with the reduced felt recoil of my Mk V with a Banzer muzzle brake in comparison to my Ruger #1 that I would not dare want to shoot the 240gr bullet in it. Is it the muzzle brake and the MKV stock or what???? All so would you take the time to define the effect of the muzzle brake on felt recoil. thanks

    The muzzle brake reduces recoil. Like taking a 65ft/lb kicker and chopping 25 ft/lbs off. Now it is a 40 ft/lb kicker. The rest is heavily subjective. What you feel will be different from what I feel and so on.

    I wouldn't want to shoot your .300 either. They kick too hard.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •