Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Custom Rifles & Wildcats Light Rifles caliber choice/understanding recoil

Good post JimF. I also have a lightweight 06 that kicks the snot outta me. It really likes 180 grain Noslers but over 60 gr H 4831 it ain't no picnic.

I was seriously considering a lightweight elk rifle. I seem to find myself hunting at 10,000 feet carrying about 87 lbs of gear in 2 feet of snow, 5 miles from camp. Been carrying a 9# 338 for a while but decided against the lightweight route based on recoil considerations. For me, I start to become really aware of recoil about the 300 win level in a 9 pound rifle. I shot my buddy's 8.0 lb 300 win and didn't like it. I tried the lightweight 06 idea but found the recoil not much different than my 9 lb 300 win. I'm only 40, so I guess I'll just keep lugging 9# rifles or find elk closer to the road..............

The dynamics of stock design,can't be stressed too much IMHO.

One of the hardest recoiling rifles I ever shot was an Uncle's POS Mossberg 30-'06. It still gives me the willies and that has been many moons!

Fit/feel are very subjective and what one craves,another may despise and despite exact same calculated recoil energies,two like weight rifles of differing stock construction can feel night and day different on the receiving end(shoulder)....................

anyone have issues with the browning ss stalker stocks? my two buddies have em' in 280 and they are the nastiest recoiling pos i ever shot. i refuse to sight them in for them. my wood stocked abolt is a dream. i dont get it.
bwinters, grab an old 280 700 mountain rifle. that should keep you in the good till' 65 <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
woofer

bwinters:

A sub 6 lb 338-08 would be just the ticket for you. It delivers approx factory 30-06/180 trajectories with 180-210 gr. bullets from a 21" bbl. Recoil is about 6lb. '06 or 9 lb 300 levels. Stout, but manageable.

JimF

how about a 350 rem mag?! 225's at 2700.........cant wait to shoot mine. 6.5# all up. it might bite but what the hell.
woofer

stick is right on stock shape/material and subjectives. i had a savage plain wood stock rifle in 7mm rem mag and a rem 700 adl in .270 win in plastic stock. with the 7 mag's stock trimmed drastically, the scoped rifles weighed the same. the 7 mag, with full-house 150-grain and 175-grain loads, was a piece o' cake. the 700 had a nasty little sharp cheek bite despite significantly less recoil with its 130-grain loads. there is something about the old military mauser stocks with their wide butts that makes shooting full-house 8x57 loads easy for me. others won't shoot 'em because, they say, the recoil is murder. the same for m-44 mosin-nagant rifles with full-boat 7.62x54R 180-grain loads. i like the funky little boat-paddle stock (basic design from 1891). recoil is quick but easy to handle. others refuse to shoot 'em after a shot or two. here's a weird one: i'd rather shoot a model 94 winchester in .30-30 than a marlin 336 in the same chambering even though the marlin is a full pound or more heavier. the marlin raps my cheek and slaps my shoulder a bit. the winnie does not despite its lighter weight and straight-grip stock. go figure - and shoot as many different rifles as you can. something will stand up and hug you and say welcome home.

JimF - I'm with you on the 280 Rem. I have a Ruger 77 280 Rem that is as lite as I can get it w/o major renovations. It weighs ~ 8.0 lbs minus a full magazine. My loads for that particular gun must be higher pressure than the 50,000 CUP because I get an honest 2975 fps with 150 gr Sierras and a 22" barrel right at 1 MOA. There are no pressure signs. I think it may be the ticket for elk with a 150 gr. Barnes.


Stick- your right on the money concerning stock fit although some of the other recoil myths are just that. According to the slow push vs sharp jab oft cited; my 1895 Marlin 45-70 should just "push a little" compared with my 338. They both have identical recoil, ~ 31.2 vs 31.5 ft/lbs (45-70 - 400/49/1875 vs 338 - 250/71/2650) but they feel the same to me. Accordingly, recoil velocity should be more severe with the 338 but I can not detect a noticable difference. Neither is a picnic.

As a side note, I tried the 168 Trip X in the 300 win. You are right, they won't stay inside an elk, moose, bear or anything else for that matter. I stoked them with 80 gr H 4831 (~3200 fps?) and shot them into sand at 30 yards. Some lost petals but still retained ~ 90+% (except 1 which lost all petals and weighed 117 gr). Will be undertaking load development this week. Thanks for the tip.

bwinters:

I had a very similar thing happen in development for my 284. As I gradually increased charges, I had several powders deliver up around 3075 w/140's. Primers were round, everything seemed OK, but I just got nervous because I was well beyond expected velocities.

Eventually, I backed down to about 2975/140 and feel better about it. Those hotter loads may have been OK but It was not worth pushing it.

FWIW: when you go to a Barnes, you might think about dropping back one notch in bullet weight (say to 140) and for sure dropback a bit on powder. In every case I've tried, Barnes X bullets exhibit higher pressures than more conventional bullets. (Meaning you drop back 1.5 gr. or so and get the same velocity)

Also FWIW, if the various 140's are not happy in your gun, don't be afraid to try the 130 XBT. I have tried X bullets in every rifle I've had in the last 6-8 years and this 284 is the first one where they worked well. (But they are REALLY good in this one)

JimF

This was made glaringly obvious to me today. I loaded some rounds for my .338 with R15, which reaches max 8gr lower in charge weight than IMR4350. The recoil was NOTICABLY less, with little lost in the way of performance.

I'm going to experiment with that exact swap when I get ready to load up some more rounds for my .338

It's the Mtn Rifle and according to the recoil computer is doing 43ft lbs and 19 fps with 200gr BT's

Mike

The numbers are valuable information and it's interesting that recoil velocity was presented as it's a real factor.



However sometimes the effect of recoil is just something that's wrong with the gun. It only takes a hard butt plate or too low a scope for instance to make recoil really mean.



Just about a year ago I was shooting a 300 H&H M70 a lot as it was a new toy. I had the Ruger #1S there also in 300 WM and an old club member stopped by the bench as I was shooting the Ruger. He commented that "your cheek turns red when you shoot that gun". It had not occured to me that the cheek weld was so tight. I knew that I did not like to shoot that rifle but somehow the reason was not apparant. I sent the mounts back to Ruger and they returned the medium height ones.



Of the rifles I am shooting a lot now the one with the Bell & Carlson stock kicks the least considering the load. Nothing scientific in this comment but that's what I feel.

Went through this same line of thought about 10-12 years ago when ordering my first ULA. I had a Ruger No. 1 in .30-06 that for reasons unknown at the time was a real punisher (stock design didn't suit me). Ruger probably weighs close to nine pounds scoped.

Along comes the .270 ULA weighing in at four ounces short of six pounds (scoped). Recoil energy is approximately 15% more, but the felt recoil much easier on the shoulder (1303150). An excellent stock design, stock material, and fit contributed in no small way.

Same learning curve on powders: less weight=less recoil. I eventually found the old standby of 55 grains of IMR 4350 behind a 130 grain would kill as well as any (with a bit less recoil).

Certainly stock fit is critical as these rifles get lighter and lighter. It's also pretty unpredictable because it can be different for almost everybody.

The effect of powder charge on recoil is a huge eye opener for many. I was shocked by the reduction myself when working with a 6 lb. 270 a few years ago. I wanted a slightly lower velocity load for small deer so I loaded 46/4895/130 Sierra for about 2975. The recoil was so much lighter than my old standby 58/4831/3070 that I couldn't believe it. Eventually, I found that calculator and computed the recoil @ ~~ 22% less.

Most of us tend to shoot loads as close to max velocity as we can (me too). It was way off my radar screen to use a "fast" powder like 4895 in something like a 270. After I tried it, I decided that giving up 95 fps. for 22% less recoil was a darned good trade off and I never went back to my old load.

JimF

Gents, I've just found this interesting old post and would like to interject, just to add a thought to the discussion. JimF, you comment that "The numbers don't lie." While that is certainly true with numbers that have been measured (and that measurement repeated by someone else if you want to stick to the principals of scientific knowledge development), it doesn't fully apply to numbers generated by a mathematical model, which is what you folks are discussing here. I'm sure that the actual math of the model, although it takes into account the effect of the powder weight "properly", has some sort of compromise related to "average burn rate" or something that can quite easily cause those numbers to "lie" a bit.



No contest for me that stock fit is THE major felt recoil factor (within reason). Most people loath the 350 Mag in a 600 for recoil, but the 600/660 stock fits me well enough I enjoy shooting it.



I'm also a firm believer that as long as you're dealing with someone of genuine experience, subjective judgment is often very accurate indeed. So I'm afraid although I've only shot 270 gr's in a couple of 375's and have little practical experience to contribute there, my experience with other calibers more closely mirrors Big Stick's comments, and propose that "The shoulder don't lie." I'd be willing to bet that the difference between Big Stick and Shadow's finding with 375 bullet weights vs recoil is related to some other variable(s) between their rifle/bullet/load combination and they are both correct. It's a rare mathematical model that covers more than a few variables with precision.



But, JimF you've given me something else to think about here, as up until now I had tended to gravitate towards powders that nearly filled the case or were slightly compressed, since that advice has been around for years. Thanks all!

Jim,
I think your comparisons are pretty close. My 6.5 lb. ULA .300 win feels about the same as my 9.5 lb. .375 H & H.

The .300 will actually jump out and to the right if you dont hold it firmly. The .375 comes straight back. But they both whack you about the same.

I don't care what myth or numbers say, my shoulder says the .270 Win in a light mountan rifle is all the recoil I want. Anything larger in caliber is not going to be in a mountan rifle stock.

Since this post went around the first time I now have four rifles with Decelerator recoil pads. These make a huge difference. They spread the recoil out and I don't feel it nearly as much no matter what the rifle.

Odd....

I read my prior thoughts on the matter and I'm STILL "right".

Who'da thunk it?...................(grin)

Two things make any rifle feel like it hits me harder besides the measurable things you mention. One is whether it wears a scope or not - if it already moves back considerably, having a scope makes the recoil seem harder - or at least scarier! Another factor, then, that follows is eye relief. I disdain short eye relief on any hard kicking rifle. The second (or third) factor I think contributes to what I feel is the "bark" of the gun. I think I can live with identically measured recoil quite easily but give me one of those which "blasts" more loudly and I feel more recoil. I think I feel a lot of the recoil in my head,...... and I'm not only talking about the mild headache I have after blasting away a few dozen rounds from a 375 or Ruger 45-70!

And yes, I am enough of a sissy that I have to work at not flinching when I target shoot my biggest tubes. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Just ran a couple of loads through QuickLoad:

6-pound .308 shooting 168 XXX at 2600: 19.70 pounds / 14.53 fps.

8-pound .30-06 Ackley shooting 180 Scirroccos at 2800: 22.18 / 13.35 fps.

8-pound .338 Winchester shooting 225 XLCs at 2800: 34.48 pounds / 16.65 fps.

10-pound .375 H&H shooting 270 XLCs at 2650: 32.64 pounds / 11.61 fps.

That .338 Winchester I have coming is sure enough gonna kick!

Rick