Recoil

2

Replies

  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    Spk wrote: »

    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:

    Yes, bruises are descriptive of what I could have used to describe my initial post on contrasting Free Recoil against our notions and emotions. I am in agreement when you said the magic threshold (if we can call it that) is different for everyone for a wide variety of reasons, but without the numbers since everyone is different, we really would not have a discussion, unless the numbers are where we start. Saying the numbers are not the starting point is like saying there is illusion but no reality. You can't have illusion unless there is a reality. I think it all begins with the numbers as a bases to establish a standard, so that we all can have something to relate back to even if our final conclusion is an emotional response. :beer:
  • SpkSpk Senior Member Posts: 1,547 Senior Member
    ...
    I think it all begins with the numbers as a bases to establish a standard, so that we all can have something to relate back to even if it our final conclusion is an emotional response. :beer:
    +1
    Agreed
    "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
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,269 Senior Member
    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.

    Even that "Womans Gun?" I shoot, the much misaligned .270 Winchester has a heck of a slap on the bench Especially in a lighter rifle. I'd much rather shoot my 30-06 with the 200 grain Sierra Game Kings over 56 grains of IMR 4831 off the bench multiple times than my .270 with 130 grain Sierra Game Kings. It slaps hell out of me and after about 5 rounds it gets old real fast. However when shouldered in a hunting situation you don't even notice the recoil.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Even that "Womans Gun?" I shoot, the much misaligned .270 Winchester has a heck of a slap on the bench Especially in a lighter rifle. I'd much rather shoot my 30-06 with the 200 grain Sierra Game Kings over 56 grains of IMR 4831 off the bench multiple times than my .270 with 130 grain Sierra Game Kings. It slaps hell out of me and after about 5 rounds it gets old real fast. However when shouldered in a hunting situation you don't even notice the recoil.


    I have owned both in multiple rifles and I have and know from experience that I could shoot many more 130 grain bullets out of a 270win than 200 grain bullets out of a 30-06. Did you read this whole thread???


    Cartridge: .270 Win Firearm: Winchester Featherweight

    Load and Firearm Info:
    Bullet Dia (in): 0.277
    Case Length (in): 2.540
    Case Volume (gr H2O): 66.7
    Muzzle velocity (ft/sec): 3100
    Bullet Wt (gr): 130
    Charge Weight (gr): 58
    Barrel Length (in): 22
    Firearm Weight (lb): 7.50
    Free recoil energy is 18.8 ft-lb. (25.5 Joule)

    Cartridge: .30-06 Firearm: Winchester Featherweight
    Load and Firearm Info:
    Bullet Dia (in): 0.308 Case Length (in): 2.494
    Case Volume (gr H2O): 66.1 Muzzle velocity (ft/sec): 2688
    Bullet Wt (gr): 200 Charge Weight (gr): 58
    Barrel Length (in): 22 Firearm Weight (lb): 7.50
    Free recoil energy is 26.8 ft-lb. (36.3 Joule)
  • wolf049wolf049 Member Posts: 217 Member
    Snake, you are my friend, but you know, sometimes, you should not write somethings, you just should leave somethings alone, I can't believe you wrote this, I really can't. I have owned both in multiple rifles and I have and know from experience that I could shoot many more 130 grain bullets out of a 270win than 200 grain bullets out of a 30-06. Did you read this whole thread???


    Cartridge: .270 Win Firearm: Winchester Featherweight

    Load and Firearm Info:
    Bullet Dia (in): 0.270
    Case Length (in): 2.540
    Case Volume (gr H2O): 66.7
    Muzzle velocity (ft/sec): 3100
    Bullet Wt (gr): 130
    Charge Weight (gr): 58
    Barrel Length (in): 22
    Firearm Weight (lb): 7.50
    Free recoil energy is 18 ft-lb. (24.4 Joule)

    Cartridge: .30-06 Firearm: Winchester Featherweight
    Load and Firearm Info:
    Bullet Dia (in): 0.308 Case Length (in): 2.494
    Case Volume (gr H2O): 66.1 Muzzle velocity (ft/sec): 2688
    Bullet Wt (gr): 200 Charge Weight (gr): 58
    Barrel Length (in): 22 Firearm Weight (lb): 7.50
    Free recoil energy is 26.8 ft-lb. (36.3 Joule)

    Hey Beartracker, I don't mean to be a smart arse but....
    I don't know how much different the Joule would be but you put in the wrong bullet dia., it should be .277.
    "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
    - Richard Henry Lee
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    wolf049 wrote: »
    Hey Beartracker, I don't mean to be a smart arse but....
    I don't know how much different the Joule would be but you put in the wrong bullet dia., it should be .277.

    Thanks, I re-computed and it is 18.8 and (25.5 Joule) thank you again
  • SpkSpk Senior Member Posts: 1,547 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Even that "Womans Gun?" I shoot, the much misaligned .270 Winchester has a heck of a slap on the bench Especially in a lighter rifle. I'd much rather shoot my 30-06 with the 200 grain Sierra Game Kings over 56 grains of IMR 4831 off the bench multiple times than my .270 with 130 grain Sierra Game Kings. It slaps hell out of me and after about 5 rounds it gets old real fast. However when shouldered in a hunting situation you don't even notice the recoil.
    Hey snake, what do your rifles each weigh? Since Bear has the software we can have some fun here and maybe learn something. We need the bullet weights for each, velocitys if available, charge weights for both and the weight of each rifle.

    If that .270 is slapping you around on the bench but not in the field then maybe you should use a different hold on the bench, wear your hunting clothes (if your hunting clothes are thick they might offer more recoil protection) or try not to be so aware of it's recoil during shooting sessions (good luck with the last one :tooth:).
    "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
  • wolf049wolf049 Member Posts: 217 Member
    I re-computed and it is 18.8 and (25.5 Joule)

    It's amazing how .007 of an inch dia. can change your answer. Almost a whole pound and 1 Joule.
    Glad to help ya out.
    "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
    - Richard Henry Lee
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    wolf049 wrote: »
    It's amazing how .007 of an inch dia. can change your answer. Almost a whole pound and 1 Joule.
    Glad to help ya out.

    Yes, thank you so much for catching that.:up::beer:
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,269 Senior Member
    All I can base what I said on is my own experience with my two rifles. My .270 slaps, my 30-06 shoves. I can put up with the shove better than that slap. It hurts. Now as I said, when in a hunting situation I don't even feel the .270. It's just on the bench that I feel it. Of course those are my hot handloads in that .270. I will also admit that the recoil pad is a bit harder than desireable.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,948 Senior Member
    You'll have to chalk that up to differences in the rifles.

    "All else being equal" (ie. out of the same type/weight of gun), that .270 should kick less than the .30-06. Maybe not a LOT less, but definitely enough to be noticeable.

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,343 Senior Member
    Jeeper wrote: »
    You'll have to chalk that up to differences in the rifles.

    "All else being equal" (ie. out of the same type/weight of gun), that .270 should kick less than the .30-06. Maybe not a LOT less, but definitely enough to be noticeable.

    Luis


    You missed the part where he mentioned that he feels this when shooting from the bench and that in a hunting situation, he doesn't notice it. I'll have to agree with snake in that I too have several rifles that are unpleasant to shoot from a bench when based on caliber and energy they shouldn't be. Some of you can wave your calculators all you want but that's the way it is.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,141 Senior Member
    My son has a Savage 110 in .30-06 that's downright uncomfortable to shoot, even with our favorite load, a 130 grain Hornady SP at 3100 FPS. The other five rifles we have between us chambered for the same round don't have a "felt" recoil anywhere similar to that one. Stock geometry seems to be the difference, so it's going to get dropped into a Hogue stock pretty soon. My .50 caliber Hawken slaps me under my high Cherokee cheekbone hard enough to leave bruises after 5 or 6 shots. I had to cut the top of the stock cheekpiece down about 3/4" to minimize the pain.
    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
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,269 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    You missed the part where he mentioned that he feels this when shooting from the bench and that in a hunting situation, he doesn't notice it. I'll have to agree with snake in that I too have several rifles that are unpleasant to shoot from a bench when based on caliber and energy they shouldn't be. Some of you can wave your calculators all you want but that's the way it is.

    Thanks Fishheadgib, you're the only one that caught what I was saying. And also, I didn't say the .270 kicked more, I said that its kick was more of a slap than a push. My 30-06 pushes way back on me. When shooting the 200 grain load, it is no pleasure to shoot period. But that .270 has a slap that punishes you at the bench like you pointed out. I'm sure some of this is the weight of the rifle and some is stock design, although it has a Monte Carlo stock which should be a great design to absorb recoil. But as someone else mentioned, it's not only about felt recoil, it's about recoil velocity.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    You missed the part where he mentioned that he feels this when shooting from the bench and that in a hunting situation, he doesn't notice it. I'll have to agree with snake in that I too have several rifles that are unpleasant to shoot from a bench when based on caliber and energy they shouldn't be. Some of you can wave your calculators all you want but that's the way it is.

    I think I have shot enough rifles through the years to not only wave my calculator and at the same time know there is no way a 270win shooting a 130gr bullet of any manufactures designed stock and rifle weight, that will slap you so hard that after "5 ROUNDS" you don't want to shoot it anymore and certainly it does not kick or slap you anywhere near a 30-06 shooting a 200gr bullet, plain and simple. I have owned a Ruger MK II plastic stock (boat paddle), Win M70 feather weight and a Savage 110 in 270win and no way with a 130gr bullet do they, are will they ever slap you so hard that after 5 rounds you don't want to shot it any more. My grandson has been shooting the 110 since he was 10 years old and the load I use is a 130gr Sierra and he has not complain. Give me a break.
  • SpkSpk Senior Member Posts: 1,547 Senior Member
    Two questions Bear:

    Where did the 5 rounds come from? The only recent post mentioning 5 or 6 rounds was from Teach and he was talking about his .50 Cal Hawkins.

    Also, what software you running? It seems to have a nice database.
    "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
    snake284 wrote: »
    Even that "Womans Gun?" I shoot, the much misaligned .270 Winchester has a heck of a slap on the bench Especially in a lighter rifle. I'd much rather shoot my 30-06 with the 200 grain Sierra Game Kings over 56 grains of IMR 4831 off the bench multiple times than my .270 with 130 grain Sierra Game Kings. It slaps hell out of me and after about 5 rounds it gets old real fast. However when shouldered in a hunting situation you don't even notice the recoil.

    this post

    The software is being tested and I am one of the testers. A friend of mine is tweaking it but it is not published yet, not sure when he is going to do so.
  • SpkSpk Senior Member Posts: 1,547 Senior Member
    Thanks Bear
    "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
  • jbohiojbohio Senior Member Posts: 5,427 Senior Member
    A good, or a poor, recoil pad can make all the difference. Stock geometry plays a huge role as well. I'm not saying Snake is a champ at dealing with recoil, but there could be factors that make a .270 seemingly kick worse than a 30-06 w/ 200 gr pills.
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 18,045 Senior Member
    Something I haven't seen mentioned in this entire thread, that has an impact on perceived recoil, is muzzle pressure. You are essentially holding on to a rocket after the the bullet leaves the muzzle and until the pressure in the bore reaches zero.

    Depending on the amount of pressure remaining, when it's released, (bullet leaves the muzzle) it can affect the amount of thrust that the "rocket" has to accelerate the rifle with. The "rocket effect" is one component of recoil you rarely hear mentioned, but it DOES exist.

    It also changes the "blast" you feel which is actually the concussive shock wave. Which adds to the perceived recoil
    I've shot a few suppressed rifles over the years, and the perceived amount of recoil reduction is quite a bit more than the numbers would indicate from adding a little bit more weight (suppressor) to the rifle.
    Reduced blast + Reduced "rocket effect" = less PERCEIVED recoil
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,948 Senior Member
    jbohio wrote: »
    A good, or a poor, recoil pad can make all the difference. Stock geometry plays a huge role as well. I'm not saying Snake is a champ at dealing with recoil, but there could be factors that make a .270 seemingly kick worse than a 30-06 w/ 200 gr pills.

    *This* is what I was saying. There is no way that a .270 cartridge (no rifle involved) pushing 130 grain bullets develops more recoil than a .30-06 pushing 200 grain bullets. What I was getting at is that it's the difference in the RIFLES that makes his .270 seem worse.

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • SpkSpk Senior Member Posts: 1,547 Senior Member
    knitepoet wrote: »
    Something I haven't seen mentioned in this entire thread, that has an impact on perceived recoil, is muzzle pressure. You are essentially holding on to a rocket after the the bullet leaves the muzzle and until the pressure in the bore reaches zero.

    Depending on the amount of pressure remaining, when it's released, (bullet leaves the muzzle) it can affect the amount of thrust that the "rocket" has to accelerate the rifle with. The "rocket effect" is one component of recoil you rarely hear mentioned, but it DOES exist.

    It also changes the "blast" you feel which is actually the concussive shock wave. Which adds to the perceived recoil
    I've shot a few suppressed rifles over the years, and the perceived amount of recoil reduction is quite a bit more than the numbers would indicate from adding a little bit more weight (suppressor) to the rifle.
    Reduced blast + Reduced "rocket effect" = less PERCEIVED recoil

    I agree, if you you reduce the blast you reduce the perceived recoil. I've seen some shooters that were more intimidated by the "blast" than the overall "kick".

    I suspect folks don't talk about the jet effect (2nd event) much since it occurs so quick that the initial recoil event and the secondary event are perceived as a single event (kick and blast occuring together).

    Not to worry though, it's included in most free recoil formulas that I'm aware of so it's not being completely forgotten.

    Using a suppressor is akin to using a brake with noise reducing benefits :tooth:
    By vectoring expanding gases radially like a brake you're effectively achieving a very similar effect (not the best but similar) and by slowing (muffling) most of the expanding gases to subsonic levels you're greatly reducing noise levels.
    "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
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,269 Senior Member
    I have heard many times by different writers that this rocket effect is most of the perceived recoil. It is like letting go of a fully blown up balloon. It will rocket around. Once the bullet clears the muzzle the gas pressure pushing against the atomosphere is what proppels the gun backwards. That's why a muzzle brake works. It redirects this jet stream somewhat to the rear and lessens the recoil.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    To generalize just to help us grab the concept:

    Note that the high velocity .270 with its 140 grain bullet has a recoil velocity of only 11.7 fps, while the relatively low velocity .450 Marlin with its 350 grain bullet at 2100 fps has a recoil velocity of 17 fps!

    Rifle weight plays an important role in determining the amount of recoil with any given caliber and load, a lighter rifle kicks more than a heavier rifle. The rifle weight not only effects free recoil and velocity, but so does bullet weight, and the powder charge. Now if we have the same load but different rifle weights here is an example - the free recoil energy noted first and then the velocity of that recoil noted afterwards.

    .300 WSM (180 grain, MV 2950 fps), 6.5 lb. rifle = 30.8 ft. lbs. / 17.5 fps
    .300 WSM (180 grain, MV 2950 fps), 8.5 lb. rifle = 23.6 ft. lbs. / 13.4 fps

    .45-70 (300 grain, MV 1900 fps), 7.0 lb. rifle = 26.6 ft. lbs. / 15.6 fps
    .45-70 (300 grain, MV 1900 fps), 8.5 lb. rifle = 21.9 ft. lbs. / 12.9 fps


    Now note two rifles weighing the same but using different bullet weights and different calibers - once again note the free recoil and the velocity. The velocities are very similar yet the free recoil is greater. Now the rifles are hitting the shoulder at pretty much the same speed but the difference is the free recoil being delivered. The free recoil is more significant than the velocity in this case, the 180gr out of the 30-06 will disturb the shooter more than the 140 out of the 270. These are only examples to help our understanding nothing more. When you consider the body make up of the shooter, his frame and weight it will impact him a little different than a man of a different body style, but in the samples below the velocity is not the real attention getter, it is the free recoil.

    .270 Win. (140 grain, MV 3000 fps) = 17.1 ft. lbs. & 11.7 fps
    .30-06 (180 grain, MV 2700 fps) = 20.3 ft. lbs. & 12.8 fps
  • wildgenewildgene Senior Member Posts: 1,036 Senior Member
    knitepoet wrote: »
    Something I haven't seen mentioned in this entire thread, that has an impact on perceived recoil, is muzzle pressure. You are essentially holding on to a rocket after the the bullet leaves the muzzle and until the pressure in the bore reaches zero.

    Depending on the amount of pressure remaining, when it's released, (bullet leaves the muzzle) it can affect the amount of thrust that the "rocket" has to accelerate the rifle with. The "rocket effect" is one component of recoil you rarely hear mentioned, but it DOES exist.

    It also changes the "blast" you feel which is actually the concussive shock wave. Which adds to the perceived recoil
    I've shot a few suppressed rifles over the years, and the perceived amount of recoil reduction is quite a bit more than the numbers would indicate from adding a little bit more weight (suppressor) to the rifle.
    Reduced blast + Reduced "rocket effect" = less PERCEIVED recoil

    "...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..."

    ...I guess I would consider any additional push from gases exiting the muzzle to still be recoil, & "muzzle blast" to be a different phenomenon. Like when they shoot a puff of air @ your eye to check for glaucoma, it's an involuntary reaction. Besides bringing your head up, loosing your stock weld, & getting whacked, being "startled" will increase what you perceive as recoil..
  • Ernie BishopErnie Bishop Senior Member Posts: 6,815 Senior Member
    Interesting discussion for sure.
    I am recoil sensitive, so I don't shoot those big boys:nono:
    Ernie

    "The Un-Tactical"
  • MileHighShooterMileHighShooter Senior Member Posts: 4,671 Senior Member
    Interesting discussion for sure.
    I am recoil sensitive, so I don't shoot those big boys:nono:

    Says the man with a 338 handgun lol
    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.
  • SpkSpk Senior Member Posts: 1,547 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    I have heard many times by different writers that this rocket effect is most of the perceived recoil. It is like letting go of a fully blown up balloon. It will rocket around. Once the bullet clears the muzzle the gas pressure pushing against the atomosphere is what proppels the gun backwards. That's why a muzzle brake works. It redirects this jet stream somewhat to the rear and lessens the recoil.
    I think I might have read that article also but that reason for the effect (gas pressure pushing against the atmosphere) is completely wrong and a total lack of understanding of Newton's Third Law. BTW, the rest of the ballon analogy is fine.

    Here's two links that might be of interest:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil
    http://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2006/Projects/S0202.pdf

    If gas pressure required the atmosphere to "push" against then space travel would not be possible by current methods. Just because the powder charge changes states (solid to gas) it still "weighs" nearly the same, giving up only a very tiny tiny fraction of it's mass as energy, the rest of the energy comes from the molecular bonds that make up the molecules.

    Therefore, 58 grains of powder becomes 58 grains of pressurized gas heading in one direction and sending the rifle in the other (no atmosphere required). By redirecting that gas in a different direction (not in the same direction of the bullet) you reduce the rearward force on the rifle and reduce Recoil (less kick). Just to be clear, by "kick" I mean Impulse and not Free Recoil Energy but both are useful.

    As to the first part, I don't know, I mean I don't know if the writers are confusing the physical Jet Effect with Blast (given both occur together). I've known new shooters that were afraid of the bang of a .22 LR and certainly not the "kick". On the other hand, if the writers were talking about some of the little speed demons like the .22-250 Remington, for example, a 40 grain bullet on top of a charge of 43.5c Accur 2700. Now we have a load where the charge outweighs the bullet so the Jet event would be larger than the initial event (and a nice blast to!). As I pointed out earlier, both these events are going to seem like one single kick/bang event anyway.

    This all quickly changes once you start playing with the big boys and you had better respect the big kickers because they don't give a :blah: about your perception.

    The main problem that I see with a recoil discussion is that there doesn't seem to be a common consensus among shooters regarding vocabulary. I've heard recoil, kick, slap, punch, blast, thrust and rocket effect plus a few more all used to try and describe a recoil event and it's effect on the shooter. So a common starting point is obviously necessary and that's the direction Beartracker was trying to go.

    I hope this rant has made a little sense to someone. :punch:
    "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
    270Win
    130gr bullet
    3140fps
    gun weight including scope 8 pounds
    Recoil velocity is 12.9
    Free recoil 20.9

    30-06
    200gr bullet
    2688fps
    gun weight including scope 8 pounds
    Recoil velocity is 14.1
    Free recoil is 24.8



    Point being if both rifles weighted the same, there is no such thing as a 30-06 giving you just a push and the 270win slapping you with more perceived recoil due to velocity of recoil from the 270Win and 130 grain bullet than a 30-06 with a 200gr bullet. The 30-06 has more recoil velocity with the 200gr bullet than the 270win has with the 130 gr bullet, much less the greater free recoil to boot of the 30-06 with the 200gr bullet than the 270Win with the 130grain bullet. The 30-06 will slap you harder and that is a fact. Emotions and perceptions are one thing but reality generally is another and in this case the reality is clear, the 200gr bullet out of a 30-06 will slap you harder and faster than a 130gr bullet out of a 270Win. If the 270win weighed only 7 pounds including scope the free recoil would still be less at 23.9 and the Velocity of recoil would not even be notice at 14.8 over the 30-06's 14.1

    30-06
    150gr bullet
    2900fps
    gun weight including scope 7 pounds
    Recoil velocity 14.8
    Free recoil 24.

    270Win
    130gr bullet
    3140fps
    gun weight including scope 7 pounds
    Recoil velocity 14.8
    Free recoil 23.9


    30-06
    200gr bullet
    2688fps
    gun weight including scope 7 pounds
    Recoil velocity 16.2
    Free recoil is 28.6


    All things said and done I would not want to shoot a light rife in most cartridges but to say there is a big difference in a 130 gr out of a 270win in like rifles with like weight than a 200gr out of a 30-06 is just not there and even it the 270win is lighter a big difference is just not there unless the 30-06 is in a light rifle and yes sir, then there is a big difference and it is with the 30-06.

    Now imagine BP shooting his 458Win mag with a full charge in front of a 500gr bullet with over 70 pounds of free recoil and recoil velocity over 21fps, that is a lot.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,141 Senior Member
    Some guns are simply less comfortable to shoot than others, and the thrust numbers for recoil have little to do with it. If you don't believe that, try screwing a 4-bladed broadhead arrowhead into the stock of the rifle and make it the only point of contact with your shoulder when you shoot. A narrow buttplate made of steel or hard plastic instead of a relatively shock-absorbing piece soft rubber will definitely alter a shooter's perception of what's happening when he squeezes a round off. The angle of the stock in relation to the bore makes a noticeable difference, at least in the shooter's reaction to the recoil, also. Add a sharp, very loud muzzle blast, and things can go downhill in a hurry.
    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
2
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.