Recoil

GUNSMOKEGUNSMOKE New MemberPosts: 6 New Member
how does the recoil compare between a 308 caliber and a 7mm mag
«13

Replies

  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 6,227 Senior Member
    Depends.

    In general, the 7 mag has a little more recoil, but it depends on the weight of the bullet, the rifle, and muzzle velocity.

    If you're comfortable shooting a .308 loaded with 165 grain bullets, you'll probably do ok with a 7 mag.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • MileHighShooterMileHighShooter Senior Member Posts: 4,671 Senior Member
    Do you mean a 308 Winchester? Or just magnums that shoot a .308" bullet? If the second, depends on which magnums you are talking about. Recoil is also subjective, and relies a lot of the bullet weight and rifle weight.

    7mm Rem Mag vs 300 Win Mag - 300 kicks more
    7mm STW vs 300 Win Mag - bout the same
    7mm RUM vs 300 Win Mag - again about the same maybe a tiny bit more with 175gr bullets.

    But.....any of those vs a 300 Wby mag, or 300 RUM, or 30-378 Wby....no comparison at all, that 7mm will feel like a 243 next to them. Conversely, all of those vs a 300 WSM, the WSM will probably kick a bit less. But WSM vs WSM, 30 again kicks more. Same with 7SAUM vs 300 SAUM.

    BUT, if you ARE talking about the 308, in equal rifles it will recoil less. However, 308's for hunting tend to be lighter then a standard 7mm Rem Mag would be...so again, with heavy bullets and a VERY light rifle they'll come close to equaling.

    Basically it all boils down to.......it depends.
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Once again, please refrain from cutting short any baseless totally emotional arguments with facts. It leads to boring, completely objective conversations well beyond the comprehension ability of many.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 14,287 Senior Member
    Basically it all boils down to.......it depends.

    The weight of the two different rifles is going to come into play.

    I will say this...if you are recoil sensitive, by all means, buy a P.A.S.T recoil shield when you pick up that rifle. I wore one for years for extended shooting sessions with my .300 Win. Mag. then I finally put a brake on the beast...like shooting a .243....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 12,832 Senior Member
    Stock design will also play into perceived recoil.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    Cartridge: .7mm Rem Mag Firearm: Hunting rifle
    Load and Firearm Info:
    Bullet Dia (in): 0.284
    Case Length (in): 2.500
    Case Volume (gr H2O): 80.8
    Muzzle velocity (ft/sec): 2940
    Bullet Wt (gr): 160
    Charge Weight (gr): 65
    Barrel Length (in): 24
    Firearm Weight (lb): 7.50
    Free recoil energy is 24.3 ft-lb. (33 Joule)

    Cartridge: .308 win Firearm: Hunting rifle
    Load and Firearm Info:
    Bullet Dia (in): 0.308
    Case Length (in): 2.015
    Case Volume (gr H2O): 55.8
    Muzzle velocity (ft/sec): 2650
    Bullet Wt (gr): 168
    Charge Weight (gr): 43
    Barrel Length (in): 22
    Firearm Weight (lb): 7.50
    Free recoil energy is 16.7 ft-lb. (22.7 Joule)
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,343 Senior Member
    Thanks for that Mike. I don't like getting all chin rubbing and philosophical or ambiguous about questions like this. I have several rifles in .308win ranging from a 6lb 10oz ultralight to about a 10lb BAR and a couple in between and I've loaded and fired everything through them from 110gr to 180gr and I have one rifle in 7mm rem mag that I have loaded and fired rounds from 120gr to 175gr and in every case, the 7mm mag recoiled more!
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    Thanks for that Mike. I don't like getting all chin rubbing and philosophical or ambiguous about questions like this. I have several rifles in .308win ranging from a 6lb 10oz ultralight to about a 10lb BAR and a couple in between and I've loaded and fired everything through them from 110gr to 180gr and I have one rifle in 7mm rem mag that I have loaded and fired rounds from 120gr to 175gr and in every case, the 7mm mag recoiled more!

    Hey, you know we all get philosophical but the numbers never lie - our notions and opinions can unintentionally end up being a lie, but not the numbers. I like the numbers when all is said and done.

    OH YEAH, welcome to the forum GUNSMOKE :guns:
  • GUNSMOKEGUNSMOKE New Member Posts: 6 New Member
    Hey-- I appreciate the answers. Recoil is an amazing subject with many variables. But the info has been helpful. Now for another question- the Weatherby Vanguard in 257 Weatherby mag with scope weighing in at 8.5 lbs. firing Nosler accubond 110 gr - wonder about recoil and also is this round used for deer and elk and what else. Read Buck Pope's article from Guns & Ammo Jan. 2009. Even though the ammo is on the expensive side, this sounded like an exciting combination.
  • GUNSMOKEGUNSMOKE New Member Posts: 6 New Member
    Hey-- Thanks Beartracker for the welcome. I really enjoy "talking" about guns and ammo and hunting.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,141 Senior Member
    You'll end up with a lot of bloodshot meat with that rig, and I'd be reluctant to take an elk with it- - - - - -there are much more suitable rounds for an animal that big. It would be a good choice for antelope at long range, or larger varmints like coyotes, etc. Oldtimers like Elmer Keith preferred medium to large bore bullets, at moderate velocities instead ot the lightweight, fast stuff. Their rationale was "You can eat right up to the bullet hole!" I shot a medium-sized whitetail doe with a 225 grain softpoint from a .338-06 once, got a bang/flop kill, and very little meat damage.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    GUNSMOKE wrote: »
    Hey-- I appreciate the answers. Recoil is an amazing subject with many variables. But the info has been helpful. Now for another question- the Weatherby Vanguard in 257 Weatherby mag with scope weighing in at 8.5 lbs. firing Nosler accubond 110 gr - wonder about recoil and also is this round used for deer and elk and what else. Read Buck Pope's article from Guns & Ammo Jan. 2009. Even though the ammo is on the expensive side, this sounded like an exciting combination.

    Cartridge: .257 Wby Firearm: Vanguard
    Load and Firearm Info:
    Bullet Dia (in): 0.257
    Case Length (in): 2.549
    Case Volume (gr H2O): 80.3
    Muzzle velocity (ft/sec): 3475
    Bullet Wt (gr): 110
    Charge Weight (gr): 71
    Barrel Length (in): 24
    Firearm Weight (lb): 8.50
    Free recoil energy is 19.2 ft-lb. (29.5 Joule)

    The 257Wby is an outstanding cartridge and with the right bullet it can and has been used on elk, but it is not my favorite cartridge for elk. The 110 Nosler is used by a friend of mine and he has used it on black bear for years and loves it. Great cartridge and it is a laser, very flat trajectory.
  • wildgenewildgene Senior Member Posts: 1,036 Senior Member
    Hey, you know we all get philosophical but the numbers never lie - our notions and opinions can unintentionally end up being a lie, but not the numbers. I like the numbers when all is said and done.

    OH YEAH, welcome to the forum GUNSMOKE :guns:
    +1

    ...the numbers never lie, but much like politicans, there's a lot of "selective truth" that can go w/ 'em...

    ...for example, a full sized rifle has almost twice as much area @ the butt than a "carbine" (11sq.in./ 6.5sq.in.). Half again as much recoil spread over twice as much area, well, you do the math. Comparing apples to apples, as you step up to a larger case/ bullet combination you will have more "actual recoil", apples to oranges, "perceived recoil" can be affected by a large number of variables. Barrel length, peak pressure curve, powder efficiency can all contribute to "perceived recoil", as most people don't differentiate between "muzzle blast" & "recoil". If it's miserable to shoot, it's miserable to shoot...
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    wildgene wrote: »
    If it's miserable to shoot, it's miserable to shoot...

    AMEN!!! Can not argue with that :applause:
  • SpkSpk Senior Member Posts: 1,547 Senior Member
    wildgene wrote: »
    +1

    ...the numbers never lie, but much like politicans, there's a lot of "selective truth" that can go w/ 'em...
    ...
    +1 :up:

    Absolutely,

    And if you ask the wrong questions you'll get the wrong answers and the numbers will make no effort to correct your mistakes.

    GIGO
    "Facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts and evidence" — John Adams
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    :jester:
    Spk wrote: »
    +1 :up:

    Absolutely,

    And if you ask the wrong questions you'll get the wrong answers and the numbers will make no effort to correct your mistakes.

    GIGO

    True indeed - Only because of denial !!!!:uhm::jester:
  • MileHighShooterMileHighShooter Senior Member Posts: 4,671 Senior Member
    GUNSMOKE wrote: »
    Hey-- I appreciate the answers. Recoil is an amazing subject with many variables. But the info has been helpful. Now for another question- the Weatherby Vanguard in 257 Weatherby mag with scope weighing in at 8.5 lbs. firing Nosler accubond 110 gr - wonder about recoil and also is this round used for deer and elk and what else. Read Buck Pope's article from Guns & Ammo Jan. 2009. Even though the ammo is on the expensive side, this sounded like an exciting combination.

    A rifle like that is going to have similar ft-lbs of recoil to a light 308 or a 270 with heavier bullets, but ANOTHER cog to throw in the wheel is recoil velocity i.e. how fast is it coming back. Two rifles can have 20 ft-lbs of recoil (again this is all in theory here) but if one has a 14 ft/s velocity and one has a 21 ft/s, the 21 is going to "feel" like it kicks more. Recoil velocity again has a lot to do with bullet weight and more so with gun weight. Pressure can also come into play here. This is where the general attitude of standard vs magnum comes into play....standards give that heavy shove where magnums give that sharp smack on the shoulder. A 375 H&H has a dang good amount of actual recoil, but many people enjoy shooting them more then the fast 30 and 338 magnums because again, heavy shove vs hard SMACK. More food for thought.

    Now if I HAD to use a 257 for elk, that Accubond, or a heavier barnes TSX would be my options. However, it would not be my 1st, 2nd, 3rd or even 7th choice for an elk rifle. If you stuck to double lung shots at reasonable ranges, like under 200 yards, I imagine dead is dead. I don't see a whole lot of meat damage like TEACH mentioned because you are using a fast cartridge yes, but a very stout bullet. The 120gr Nosler Partition MAY be a better choice, but with an animal that big and a caliber that small I'd opt for a much stronger bullet thats going to retain a lot more weight personally. For me, that would almost have to be a monometal premium bullet. To justify that, lets think of it this way....a 150gr Nosler Partition in 270 will lose what, abotu 60% of its original weight? That means that slug ends up weighing only 60 grains....even if it only lost 30% of its weight that still only leaves 105gr. A 115gr Barnes TSX will go in 115gr, and come out 115gr.
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Once again, please refrain from cutting short any baseless totally emotional arguments with facts. It leads to boring, completely objective conversations well beyond the comprehension ability of many.
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 27,815 Senior Member
    wildgene wrote: »
    +1

    If it's miserable to shoot, it's miserable to shoot...

    ABSOLUTELY!!!
    My first .300 WinMag was a Ruger with the hard thin red recoil pad. I HATED that gun even though it weighed in at over 9 lbs it stomped me!
    My current .300 WinMag is a Remington Custom Shop AWR with a nicely shaped stock and a good pad. Gun weight is less than 8 pounds and it's easy to shoot.

    My first .458 WinMag was a Ruger #1, again with that miserable red thin recoil pad (well Ruger calls it a recoil pad, the only thing it's good for is so the gun does not slide off the rack). Shot it a handful of times and I was done with it. My last .458 WinMag was a CZ Magnum. A pleasure to shoot that gun even off a bench.

    I bought a Rem 700 in .338 RUM and the first time I touched it off I though my retinas got detached. Switched to a Remington R3 Pad and all of a sudden it was not that bad anymore.

    Bought a Past Magnum Recoil shield and all of a sudden even the heavy kickers are not that bad off the bench.

    My point is that therr are a lot of variables to the perceived recoil issue. And you won't know how bad a gun sucks until you pull the trigger...
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,343 Senior Member

    Now if I HAD to use a 257 for elk, that Accubond, or a heavier barnes TSX would be my options. However, it would not be my 1st, 2nd, 3rd or even 7th choice for an elk rifle. If you stuck to double lung shots at reasonable ranges, like under 200 yards, I imagine dead is dead. I don't see a whole lot of meat damage like TEACH mentioned because you are using a fast cartridge yes, but a very stout bullet. The 120gr Nosler Partition MAY be a better choice, but with an animal that big and a caliber that small I'd opt for a much stronger bullet thats going to retain a lot more weight personally. For me, that would almost have to be a monometal premium bullet. To justify that, lets think of it this way....a 150gr Nosler Partition in 270 will lose what, abotu 60% of its original weight? That means that slug ends up weighing only 60 grains....even if it only lost 30% of its weight that still only leaves 105gr. A 115gr Barnes TSX will go in 115gr, and come out 115gr.


    I'm gonna state with confidence that Teach is speaking from experience rather than theorizing with a calculator. I've shot a few critters and dressed a few more that were hit with small fast bullets and I have to agree with him. Incidently, a 150gr Nosler partition weighs 85gr if you remove every trace of lead from the forward section of the bullet but of all the animals I've shot with partitions and recovered the bullets, there was always some lead left in the forward section. Another flaw in your theory is that a 150gr bullet still weighs that when it impacts an animal and any weight lost in the animal represents the transfer of energy. You even contradict yourself when you say that if you had to use that caliber you would use "that accubond, or a heavier Barnes TXS" then in the next sentence you state that "it would not be my 1st, 2nd, 3rd or even 7th choice for an elk rifle". Then you contradict yourself and state that "the 120gr Nosler partition may be a better choice". Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're trying to say, but maybe not.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • MileHighShooterMileHighShooter Senior Member Posts: 4,671 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    I'm gonna state with confidence that Teach is speaking from experience rather than theorizing with a calculator. I've shot a few critters and dressed a few more that were hit with small fast bullets and I have to agree with him. Incidently, a 150gr Nosler partition weighs 85gr if you remove every trace of lead from the forward section of the bullet but of all the animals I've shot with partitions and recovered the bullets, there was always some lead left in the forward section. Another flaw in your theory is that a 150gr bullet still weighs that when it impacts an animal and any weight lost in the animal represents the transfer of energy. You even contradict yourself when you say that if you had to use that caliber you would use "that accubond, or a heavier Barnes TXS" then in the next sentence you state that "it would not be my 1st, 2nd, 3rd or even 7th choice for an elk rifle". Then you contradict yourself and state that "the 120gr Nosler partition may be a better choice". Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're trying to say, but maybe not.

    you are way over analyzing my statements lol

    Read it again, as it was all based on if I HAD to use that cartridge. Which directly coincides with what I said about it not being 1st-7th choice. Thought that was pretty clear. And with the 120 Nosler, notice my emphasis on "M A Y". I think your are picking things apart just for the sake of picking things apart.

    I'll say again, not a good elk caliber. BUT, elk have fallen to them. I know a guide who swears by a 25-06, 100 yards or less, double lung. Forgot what bullet he uses. If its a case of you are hunting dear and happen to see an elk, with a tag in your pocket well I guess its the only choice you have.
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Once again, please refrain from cutting short any baseless totally emotional arguments with facts. It leads to boring, completely objective conversations well beyond the comprehension ability of many.
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 23,407 Senior Member
    GUNSMOKE: welcome aboard
    This message has been deleted
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,158 Senior Member
    My single experience with a 7mm Magnum was an old Stevens bolt action, and it kicked worse than anything I had ever shot at the time...and that included a 10 gauge goose gun. I owned a .308 in a Model 88 Winchester, at the time, and my max loaded 150 grain hand loads were cream puffs, by comparison. I don't remember what ammo I was shooting in the 7mm, if I ever knew.

    It was far worse than the .300 Win Mag that I shot in a Tikka T3, so I think stock design is definitely a major factor.
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    Felt recoil only goes so far and does not remove the physics of Free recoil realities. You might like how a stock reduces the felt recoil and some do a great job like the Weatherby stocks. But free recoil is free recoil and what I mean is that free recoil does impact the the person shooting the rifle whether it feels better with one rifle as apposed to another - because outside of the emotional impact it has on you (you feeling it is not as bad as that other rifle), free recoil is being absorbed by your body each time and after a while there is the accumulative effect of the recoil.

    This will show up after a while in jerking or your groups beginning to opening up even though you are trying to really shoot like you did when you started the session. Some it impacts more than others, but it is still a factor. So Free recoil is more important to consider than felt recoil, although if I am shooting a rifle that has a lot of free recoil I want one that is stocked in a way that it at least feels better shooting it than another rifle that is stocked differently. The Velocity of recoil only impacts my felt recoil issues, but it does not change the accumulative affect of the foot pounds of free recoil my body continues to receive. It is important in choosing a cartridge to shoot if you are going to shoot a lot off the bench or be proficient in the field with what does not impede your accuracy because of the recoil. A rifle that only produces 15ft-lbs of free recoil will be a whole lot more fun to shoot than a rifle that produces 32ft-lbs of recoil like my 300Win mag with a 165gr bullet or like BP's 458Win mag shooting a 500gr bullet that produces 72ft-bls of free recoil. The accumulative affect of free recoil is a reality not a notion of my emotions.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,343 Senior Member
    Mike, I actually have a 45-70 that has no free recoil to speak of.
    When I chronographed my 405gr snotslingers from the bench, I paid dearly for the recoil.:tooth:
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    Mike, I actually have a 45-70 that has no free recoil to speak of.
    When I chronographed my 405gr snotslingers from the bench, I paid dearly for the recoil.:tooth:

    :spittingcoffee::rotflmao::rotflmao::cool2::up:
  • SpkSpk Senior Member Posts: 1,547 Senior Member
    Felt recoil only goes so far and does not remove the physics of Free recoil realities. You might like how a stock reduces the felt recoil and some do a great job like the Weatherby stocks. But free recoil is free recoil and what I mean is that free recoil does impact the the person shooting the rifle whether it feels better with one rifle as apposed to another - because outside of the emotional impact it has on you (you feeling it is not as bad as that other rifle), free recoil is being absorbed by your body each time and after a while there is the accumulative effect of the recoil.

    This will show up after a while in jerking or your groups beginning to opening up even though you are trying to really shoot like you did when you started the session. Some it impacts more than others, but it is still a factor. So Free recoil is more important to consider than felt recoil, although if I am shooting a rifle that has a lot of free recoil I want one that is stocked in a way that it at least feels better shooting it than another rifle that is stocked differently. The Velocity of recoil only impacts my felt recoil issues, but it does not change the accumulative affect of the foot pounds of free recoil my body continues to receive. It is important in choosing a cartridge to shoot if you are going to shot a lot off the bench or be proficient in the field with what does not impede your accuracy because of the recoil. A rifle that only produces 15ft-lbs of free recoil will be a whole lot more fun to shoot than a rifle that produces 32ft-lbs of recoil like my 300Win mag with a 165gr bullet or like BP's 458Win mag shooting a 500gr bullet that produces 72ft-bls of free recoil. The accumulative affect of free recoil is a reality not a notion of my emotions.

    Could you explain this a little more please? :popcorn:
    "Facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts and evidence" — John Adams
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    Spk wrote: »
    Could you explain this a little more please? :popcorn:

    I think I have enough, would you like to tell us what you think, I am open to correction, will be looking for your response with interest, I am always willing to learn and where I am wrong, I will change my view.
  • BPsniperBPsniper Banned Posts: 1,961 Senior Member
    Like Beartracker said, recoil is recoil and how much recoil is generated depend on a lot of variables. All things equal except stock design, the recoil is the same. Only difference is how the recoil is transferred and distributed to the shooter. Pain tolerance comes into play as well. How much one can take and how it effects you as well. Body weight, shape, and so forth. But 50 pounds of recoil is 50 pounds of recoil. Distribution and acceptance being the deciding factor.
    "....the true general purpose big-game cartridges used in this country come in but two calibers, .30 and 7mm. (the .270 Win. is merely a slightly aberrant 7mm whose bullets are .007" undersize.) -Finn Aagaard - American Rifleman, December 1986
  • SpkSpk Senior Member Posts: 1,547 Senior Member
    Felt recoil only goes so far and does not remove the physics of Free recoil realities. You might like how a stock reduces the felt recoil and some do a great job like the Weatherby stocks. But free recoil is free recoil and what I mean is that free recoil does impact the the person shooting the rifle whether it feels better with one rifle as apposed to another - because outside of the emotional impact it has on you (you feeling it is not as bad as that other rifle), free recoil is being absorbed by your body each time and after a while there is the accumulative effect of the recoil.

    This will show up after a while in jerking or your groups beginning to opening up even though you are trying to really shoot like you did when you started the session. Some it impacts more than others, but it is still a factor. So Free recoil is more important to consider than felt recoil, although if I am shooting a rifle that has a lot of free recoil I want one that is stocked in a way that it at least feels better shooting it than another rifle that is stocked differently. The Velocity of recoil only impacts my felt recoil issues, but it does not change the accumulative affect of the foot pounds of free recoil my body continues to receive. It is important in choosing a cartridge to shoot if you are going to shot a lot off the bench or be proficient in the field with what does not impede your accuracy because of the recoil. A rifle that only produces 15ft-lbs of free recoil will be a whole lot more fun to shoot than a rifle that produces 32ft-lbs of recoil like my 300Win mag with a 165gr bullet or like BP's 458Win mag shooting a 500gr bullet that produces 72ft-bls of free recoil. The accumulative affect of free recoil is a reality not a notion of my emotions.

    accumulate:
    v. To gather or pile up; Amass. (The American Heritage Dictionary p.6)

    Now I know you know what the word means so I have to believe that in the context of your post you meant the psychological effect of the repeated exposure to unpleasant levels of mechanical recoil. Afterall, the body does not store recoil energy, it merely acts as a conduit for the recoil impulse before it reaches the ground.

    So if you are speaking to the psychological development of flinch:
    ...
    This will show up after a while in jerking or your groups beginning to opening up even though you are trying to really shoot like you did when you started the session.
    ...

    Then I just wanted to point out that like most creatures on the planet, that I'm aware of, we are mostly response driven animals. If something feels good we try to enjoy more of it and if something feels bad we tend to avoid it if we can.

    So I'm genuinely confused by the remark:
    ...
    The Velocity of recoil only impacts my felt recoil issues, but it does not change the accumulative affect of the foot pounds of free recoil my body continues to receive
    ...

    So I think I know where you're headed with this discussion but I'm not certain. As wildgene already pointed out:
    wildgene wrote: »
    ...
    If it's miserable to shoot, it's miserable to shoot...

    If it's miserable to me I won't really care what the physics says lol! Don't get me wrong, I like math and I like physics but what people "feel" as recoil or kick is probably more important than what the numbers say.

    JMHO
    "Facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts and evidence" — John Adams
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    Spk wrote: »
    accumulate:
    v. To gather or pile up; Amass. (The American Heritage Dictionary p.6)

    Now I know you know what the word means so I have to believe that in the context of your post you meant the psychological effect of the repeated exposure to unpleasant levels of mechanical recoil. Afterall, the body does not store recoil energy, it merely acts as a conduit for the recoil impulse before it reaches the ground.

    Your remark is a little condescending, of course I know what it means and also what it implies. The body from any physical activity that impacts it, especially if it is violent, does have accumulated affects, that is why sometimes after shooting we have a bruised shoulder so to tell me that the body does not store energy is true, but to say there is not an accumulated affect of the body having to repeatedly deal with the free recoil is not so, and therefore you have ignored the implications and obvious result of the accumulated affect of free recoil on the body. As the shoulder is being damaged the shooter will tend to shoot different because of the accumulated impact results.


    So if you are speaking to the psychological development of flinch:

    It is much more than the psychological development of flinch, it is a result of actual pain and damage done to the body due to the accumulate impact result of the free recoil. Some react differently than others but the accumulated affect of recoil is apparent in altering the body. Once again you ignore and obvious fact of the accumulated results of recoil.


    Then I just wanted to point out that like most creatures on the planet, that I'm aware of, we are mostly response driven animals. If something feels good we try to enjoy more of it and if something feels bad we tend to avoid it if we can.

    So I'm genuinely confused by the remark:

    I see that you are and understandably so, because your thesis is flawed, it is narrow and one sided, you only consider the bias you approached the subject with in the first place.


    So I think I know where you're headed with this discussion but I'm not certain. As wildgene already pointed out:


    If it's miserable to me I won't really care what the physics says lol! Don't get me wrong, I like math and I like physics but what people "feel" as recoil or kick is probably more important than what the numbers say.

    I do see your point you are trying to make, but that it weakens the body is apparent, because with out the actual recoil that is significant enough to get someones attention due to impacting the body, there would be no psychological response to deal with in the first place, and even this is dependent on the specific person and how he chooses to interpret the recoil but it is the accumulated recoil that is the cause not the effect.


    I agree sometimes what people emotionally feel is more than the number and sometimes it is not, depending on the person and the actual foot pounds of recoil being delivered to the body.

    In some aspects of this conversation we are in agreement, but I do disagree with your notion that because the body does not store energy that there is not any accumulated impact results that can linger for quit a long time after shooting a rifle that has a lot of free recoil.

    JMHO

    At least you know where I am if you agree or not.
  • SpkSpk Senior Member Posts: 1,547 Senior Member
    Excellent response Beartracker, I've forgotten how many bruises I've given myself over the years. It was not my intention to be condescending, I just thought maybe we were talking about two different things.

    The body does store energy, in a manner of speaking, and those transient forces passing through the body can cause physical damage (even serious damage).

    The issue I see is that FPE is often used as a metric that suggests at a certain threshold we find it uncomfortable. I think in many gun-rags that threshold is 20 FPE.

    The problem I see with this is that magic threshold will be different for everyone for a wide variety of reasons. Using numbers is a starting point and not the big picture.

    BTW, "accumulated impact results" (bruises :tooth:) is a much more descriptive phrase that I can sink my teeth into.
    :beer:
    "Facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts and evidence" — John Adams
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.