Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Why do some gun writers site low recoil as equaling killing ability?

Something I have always wondered about is why so many writers will say that the reason so many deer-elk-antelope,hogs etc are killed with low recoiling rounds such as the 243, 250, 260, 30-30 is that the caliber has very little recoil. Like thats why it works. Quite often it is stated they are good for beginners for that same reason.

I just read an article on the 250 Savage where this was stated and it makes me wonder.

Do they actually mean it?? I mean if a 250 kills well because it kicks little so you hit em right, then a 22-250 must be even better because then you would never miss right??

Too much is made of this in my opinion. It is often said about cartridges that recoil pretty good and are in fact very well designed for the game being hunted. Why say that?

As somebody who has grown up a subsistence hunter-(Indian Reservation, without caliber restrictions) and living in a state with .22 centerfires being the minimum for big game, having taken deer with a fair amount of calibers that recoil very little- I'll say that little recoil has nothing to do with it. You still have to put the projectile into the kill zone and then dont chase it. Do that and ur eating meat for dinner.

The fact that the 250 or 243,6mm, 257 rob, 260,30-30's dont kick a whole lot has nothing to do with their killing ability. They all have bullets designed to perform on game of a certain build and size and they do. They can be asked to do more by competent hunters and do that fine too.

Once you get down below that level you run into even smaller calibers that can and have taken a great many game animals around the world such as the 22-250, 7.62X39, 220 swift and 223 ect. They recoil even less. Their killing power is not related to their lack of recoil but instead to the shooter knowing they are slightly undergunned and making good shots and decisions after the shot.

Below that we get to rounds that don't recoil at all and still they have and will take loads of big game if ya go about it smart. They certainly don't kill it all because of their nonexistent recoil. And they dont kill because of some special bullet, a 22 Hornet with a tsx is still a lil bitty bullet.

So my wish is for those writers to give those cartridges their due, they kill well because they were designed to. My 22-250 with 60gr Partitions at 3400fps is still not the big game round its papa is.

I'm not a gun writer, but I would wager that the gun writer response will be similar to the following. The reason (as you state) that "so many writers will say that the reason so many deer-elk-antelope,hogs etc are killed with such and such caliber is that it has very little recoil," (and you might want to change that to "such and such a cartridge," as there is a big difference between a .30-30 and a .30/.378 Wby, but they are of the same caliber - semantics matter)is that when shooters aren't concerned about recoil, the incidence of flinching is greatly reduced and there is no worry about recoil, therefore more concentration focused on bullet placement and less on what will happen to your body after pulling the trigger. I don't know of any gun writer that will say that energy delivered on target trump bullet placement. Bullet placement trumps EVERYTHING - a cartridge only needs to have the energy and bullet construction to punch a hole in the vitals of the target to prove deadly. I don't think any sensible current writers discredit low-recoiling rounds or don't give them their "due". Modern bullet designs have changed the capabilities of quite a few popular cartridges that used to be considered marginal for big game.

I think that t is a diplomatic way of saying that quite a few people, not least of them beginners, get rifles that are loud and kick hard, thinking that this means that they'll be the hammer of Thor, but then can't hit worth a damn with them because of how loud they are and how hard they kick.

The bullet has to damage something vital, and if you can't do that it doesn't really matter how powerful the rifle is.

Very good Dan! Hard kickin', hard hittin', is meaningless, with out proper placement. In the last several years, my wife has racked up many kills on deer, with a .223! All, excellent head or neck shots! Not much recoil, just dead deer!

Most people don't shoot enough to become hardened riflemen so recoil and I personally believe, muzzle blast, inhibit precise placement.

The resulting flinch makes people fear, rather than embrace their rifle so they simply do not want to shoot it for pleasure.

Familiarity breeds confidence. The alternative is not as constructive. It's that simple.
John

Popped primers remain the supreme tutorial?

David

Thanks guys, I think we agree.

Selmer, I just edited the title and clarified what I meant. Makes more sense I hope.

I guess I just dont understand why its put like that. Itd be more accurate to say something like: it doesnt kick much so its really fun to shoot and that will of course make a big difference when you actually need to make your shots count.

Exactly what you just said has been said and penned by many gunwriters.

Shod

If recoil bothers a person so much that it induces flinching, makes practice unbearable or painful, and otherwise scares them, they need to switch to a lesser recoiling rifle/cartridge combo. This chit is not rocket science. The thing that gets you in the vitals of a big game animal is practice, practice, and more practice. Shoot sporting clays or trap in the off season, practice on running jacks, coyotes, pigs and other vermin. Punch paper too as it builds confidence in your rifle and your load. When the moment of truth comes along you shouldn't be focused on recoil, scope eye relief, or whether your rifle is going to go bang. Use enough gun for the game your hunting and put the bullet in the vitals. A big cartridge doesn't guarantee a DRT and neither does a small cartridge. What does matter is whether the bullet lands in the vitals. Some guys can put them in and some guys can't, regardless of the cartridge/rifle used. You'll know these guys because they cry about losing animals because their rifle recoils too much. If you can't handle a big gun, use a 243 and don't blame your inadequacy and poor skill/lack of markmanship on the size of cartridge in the chamber..

Well said bsa1917hunter.

5.56 kills equal to a 300 WSM for me. Let's see I have seen 4 gut shots so far this year with a 30-06....

Pretty much.

Physics

Equal and opposite direction

Re deer sized game, I've never seen the big, brutal cartridges kill any better than a .243, 6mm Rem, .25-06 or the like.

I've taken deer with .223 - .45/70, including the 7mm & .300 mags, and really enjoy shooting the lighter recoiling rifles much more. Besides, they're great for off-season varmint & coyote hunting. That doggone .25-06 of mine has become a real favorite, at least partly because it's so very easy to shoot. My son feels the same way about his 6mm Rem.

Guy

Same here, but I settled on a .243. Definitely not macho, but it has killed a few truckloads of game. Not once have I wished I had a .300 mag intead.

Even the most macho guys will get the fact that the lighter recoiling guns are easier to shoot with precision. I have a .458 I can shot with precision, but it is real work to do so. With my .243 or .260 it is just easy to hit targets.......

First of all, the question is based on a false assumption. I have never seen gunwriters "equate recoil as killing ability".
Lots of people here HAVE equated shot placement with killing ability. That fact has been proven so many times over so many years that it is beyond debate. When people shoot rifles that are above their level of recoil toilerance, they can't place shots well u nder field conditions. That fact has been well established by studies done by the US military, and by observetions of thousands of competetive shooters, guides and most anyone else that has spent time around the hunting/shooting game.
I am always amused by these threads that totaly reframe something that has been said, and then ask "Why did they say THAT????" Well, the answer is usually simple as in this case- They didm't say "that".

Well, yeah, the reason until now I decided not to comment. At least the original post didn't make the common comment of including all gun writers in one sweeping generalization.

I have, however, known a few gun writers who, as far as I could tell, did equate a LOT of recoil with killing power. One even seemed to enjoy getting the snot kicked out of him, which may explain the erratic behavior that eventually removed him from the business.

Since my brain is mostly idling in neutral today, this discussion made me think about muzzle brakes, and that made me think about muzzle blast and shooting thumpers in general.

And that made me wonder... has anyone ever done a study on the long-term effects of repeated heavy muzzle blast exposure? That might help explain the behavior of some writers I know and a fair number of individuals here. ;-)

I never notice recoil while out in the field.