Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Perceived recoil

I did some optics swapping around and had to re-sight some rifles this afternoon. Shooting one and then another while the barrels cooled. All three standard synthetic stocked Rem 700 (24" .270 Win 130gr, 24" 7mm08 139 gr light mag, 20" .243 .95 gr in a youth model) To me the 708 and 270 recoil was darn near identical. Not bad but tremendous compared to the 243. I have watched my kids harvest enough deer with the little rifle that it has me considing stepping down to something smaller. I would not consider myself recoil sensative but it was a joy to shoot. Killing whitetails in the southeast ain't that hard specialy if you hit em in the pie plate. Is there any real world differnce in the recoil of a .260 120 gr vs the 7mm-08?

Below is an interesting webpage that gives comparison figures for 'recoil' of various cartridges;

http://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm

IMO there is very little difference in felt recoil between the 260 and 7-08. Rifle and bullet weight would be the only things that would make a difference.

Your observations are interesting since all wore similar stocks. The worst kicking rifle that I ever owned was a 700 ADL in 30-06. It was much more unpleasant than my Winchesters in 300 H&H, .338, or 375 H&H. I got rid of that thing and never looked back. I do own a 700 Classic in .06 and it is similar to the Model 70s in the perceived recoil department.

I comprehend not the term "Perceived recoil." Would somemone kindly elucidate?

When shooting a cannon from a bench it feels like it is kicking your teeth out....shooting with the same rifle at a live target when full of adrenalin is barely felt.

Same rifle....different perception.

Mechanicaly measured and formulated, will generally give a different result from what we feel as well.

Thank you.

I just can't imagine anyone finding recoil of a 260 or 7mm-08 objectionable. They are both very mild cartridges IMO. Shoot lighter bullets if less recoil is desired, but that kinda hobbles these rounds. Might as well shoot a 243 in that case.

D R, just an observation, if you refrain from pulling the .270 hard into your shoulder you may find that the rifle does not rattle your teeth as much....just allow it and your shoulder/body to move back as the rifle moves.
Gritting your teeth and driving the rifle into your shoulder is a sure way to loosen teeth and invest in a head-ache.

I may be wrong, but it has always worked for me.

As well I understand the 'sharpness' of the recoil will affect how it is perceived vs. the theorectical recoil number. A 'long slow push' will not seem as bad. Of course the 'usual' factors still have a large impact ( bullet weight, velocity, rifle weight, positioning - prone / bench vs. standing etc.)

To the OP, the .250 Savage would be an excellent deer cartridge with minimal recoil.

I agree with mrfudd. I too had a 700 ADL in 30.06 & it kicked hard! But I had a Browning Abolt in .300WSM. That light, little rifle kicked the bajesus outa me. That one I got rid of. On the other hand, I had a 700 Classic in 6.5x55. My son who was around 13 yr old at the time loved shooting it. I have a number of friends who love this caliber & always fill their tags with it. You'll read & hear alot about "bang~flops" with the 6.5 though I never saw it. It's interesting the OP compares the .260 to the 7mm.08. A lot of articles I've read compare the .260 to the 6.5x55. If you reload the 6.5 might be what you're looking for. It's got a decent bullet selection & many companies offer a rifle in that caliber.

I think there are a number of factors involved in perceived recoil. Stock design is one part of it. My 'smith swears that the headspace and the way the chamber was cut are important factors. Given the results he's delievred for me I can't argue. Then there are the simple physics of a projectile of a certain weight being launched at a certain velocity .... for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The 6.5x55 is usually a very good compromise candidate. And it's proven in the field. I think the 257 Roberts is the next most friendly round and it has a distinguished record in the field as well.

Thanks rooster. Its nice to see I make since once in a while.

The two hardest kicking rifles I have ever fired were a .308 Winchester Model 70 and a Browning Micro Medallion in .284 Winchester. They had like a 12 inch LOP and I am 6ft 4 inches tall so these boogers basically got a running start at me.

Those little beasts just unjointed my shoulder. By comparison my current .340 Weatherby with its 14.25 in LOP seems very comfortable to shoot.


Stock fit plays a major in how recoil impacts you

worst one i ever shot was a ruger in the boat paddle stock in .270. felt like a mule kicked me every time i pulled the trigger.

Getting the rifle up off the bench by using several bags will tame the worst kickers.

Modern recoil pads are amazing.

The worst kicker I ever shot was a 670 Winchester in .30-06. It really hurt.

I really dislike shooting my dad's Rem 721 in .270. Always felt like I was just getting pounded.
Model 99 Savages always feel to me like the recoil is up instead of back. Like the rifle jumps. I recall that my .300 savage gave me a bloody nose the first time I fired it. I was pretty young then.

Does anything kick harder than one of those original H+R/NEF break actioned single shot 12 gauge shotguns with slugs or heavy turkey loads? I am pretty recoil tolerent, but a couple of shots out of one of those hurt worse than any 375 HH or 45.70 I ever shot. Those stocks kick up as much as out. I felt like I had been punched in the cheek bone as much as the shoulder. The plastic butt plate helps a lot as well.

Several rounds at the bench from my 12ga pump slug gun have me saying, "I've had enough"..... kicks far worse than any rifle I own.

Can you please give us an example of a rifle (include weight, caliber, bullet weight, powder charge in grains) whose recoil results in a 'long, slow push'?