Ok, I've had a few PM's about perceived recoil in the 270Win. 84L Select. I thought about it while at the range and thought the .308 84M Montana with a 150 felt like a 84L Select with a 130 and 150 grain bullet. I've put thoughts to the free recoil calculator. I used nominal velocities with their bullet weights.
Because a wide variety of scopes have their effect on the equation, I calculated these using the factory weight of the rifle listed - no scope,rings or bases - just the rifle. Apples to apples, as they say. The numbers will be a little higher than "normal".

Kimber 84M Montana .308 - with 150g = 23.7, with 165g =25.5
Kimber 84L Select .270 - with 130g = 20.5, with 150g =21.5
Kimber 84L Montana .270 - with 130g = 22.0,with 150=23.5
Kimber 84L Montana 30-06 - with 180g = 29.5
Kimber 8400 Montana 300WSM - 180g = 33.0

So I believe you should have a relative comparison on recoil that gives you a pretty good idea what to expect.

That's a pretty hefty jump(25%) from a 270 in either bullet weight and a 180g in a 30-06.

I've been shooting a weatherby ultralight 30/06 with 180's and the 84L classic 270 with 130's during the same range session. Quite a bit more recoil with the 06 than the 270. Neither are uncomfortable to me. I think the classic is really not bad at all.

The 84L I shot seemed to recoil hardly at all.It felt just like other 270's I shoot.User friendly...

Good stuff there BW.

What weight did you assign to each Montana?

I'm thinking in the 84L MT will be around 6 oz's heavier than the 84M.

12 oz's added for each rifles optics and mounts?

Brad, I assigned 5.25# as the weight for the 84M and 5.75# for the 84L. These weights then separate the two rifles by 8 oz..
That jives with the catalog data with the 84M (.308)being 5#2oz and the 84L being 5#10oz..

Again I did it this way so as to not have the rings, bases and scope skew the data higher or lower.

As you can see, there is quite an increase in free recoil with the 84L Montana using the 180g in the 30-06.

Thanks Joe, I was wondering. I used an online calculator and came up with slightly different figures, but I assigned them each 12oz's for scope and bases.

Brad, I don't think the slightly different result is that important as long as the empirical data shows that heavy rifles mitigate recoil and so on.

As to your 12oz., that is ok. I figured my total weight this way - 13oz. oz for the VXIII 3.5-10x40, 4 oz. for the Talley LW's and 2 oz for the Butler Creeks flip ups. that is 19 oz.
I could re-do the data, the numbers will be lower but most importantly relative to known recoil effects.

The other aspect is what you used for velocities.
For the 130g in the.270 I used 3050fps, 150g. 2850fps
For the 150gr in the .305 I used 2900fps
For the 180gr in the 30-06 I used 2800fps
For the 180gr in the 300WSM I used 2950fps

Ok, now running the data again with a rifle heavier by 16 ounces I come up with the following results. I excluded the 84L Select as we are talking about about kevlar stocks now.

Kimber 84M .308 with 150gr = 19.75ft/lbs
Kimber 84L .270Win with 130gr = 19.0
Kimber 84L .270Win with 150gr = 20.0
Kimber 84L 30-06 with 180gr = 25.0
Kimber 8400 Montana 300WSM with 180gr = 28.5

BW, The Talley Lwt's are 2oz's. I used a Leupold 6x36 which is 9.5 ounces... and since I can't stand Butler Creek caps, call it 12 oz's

But your point is well made...

Ok on the Talleys, but as long as the "all up" weights are the same, the formula will treat it proportional.

Weighing a sets of Talley LW, low, extended front yield 950 grains. With 7000 grains to one pound we have the Talleys weighing 2.17 ounces.

Butler Creek flip ups weigh 210gr to fit my scope. That is .5 ounce.

So using 16 ounces in the second set of data is accurate for using a 13 oz VXIII scope. So again, our actual numbers will be slightly different but the conclusion the same.

After all this, you could conclude that the .308 Montana and the .270 Montana will feel the same based on their numbers.
The 30-06 Montana with a 180gr represents a significant increase in felt recoil. Of course the 300WSM beats all and we all would know that without running the numbers.

How will different bullet weights look using the 84L Montana 30-06?

Ok here is the data with the 30-06 84L Montana with a weight of 6.75#. The velocities are nominal based on a review of Nosler #6.

150gr. @ 2950fps = 21.9 ft/lbs
165gr. @ 2875fps = 23.7
180gr. @ 2800fps = 25.1
200gr. @ 2650fos = 26.4

The equation yields a perfect relationship with what you would expect.

Here's the recoil calculator I like and gives a nod to our Mule Deer:

http://kwk.us/recoil.html

This one is more conventional and will yield a different result:

http://www.handloads.com/calc/recoil.asp

Yep, I use the bottom version.
Now to some velocity data. I did this out back as the snow condition at the range isn't yet conducive to setup - maybe in April? Anyway, I ran 3 shot strings of 3 different loads just to get SOME data. The averages are:

59gr. H4831SC, 130 Partition, Fed 210 @ 3.300" = 3009fps

57gr. H4831SC, 140 Accubond, Fed 210 @ 3.345" = 2848fps

55gr. H4831SC, 150 Partition, Fed 210@ 3.300" = 2722fps

Just to point out a factor of Nosler Seconds that is important.
The "seconds" that are sold in Partitions can come in two ways. If it has a cannelure, it is a retail factory over run and most likely a premium. It if DOES NOT has a cannelure it is a blemished second that is not suitable for the "black box".
These two are very different in length and what measurement you get using the Stoney Point tool to see where they touch the lands and groove.
For example, the 130gr. Parition non-cannelure touches my 84L at 3.300" where the cannelure touches at 3.300". That is important when seating up a starting point of lets say .030" off the rifling.
Another example is the 150gr. Partition. The non-cannelure touches at 3.335" and the cannelure style touches at 3.260".
That is a huge difference of .075"!!! I measured and re-measured this two over a year ago when they didn't look like they had the same profile. Just so you know.....

Another typical scenario showed up again. The 140 gr. Accubond is the longest bullet I use - at this time.
In my 84L is touches the rifling at 3.405" Fine. And I have never scene one with a cannelure by the way. The maximum magazine length is 3.365" BUT the angle of entry into the magazine with the ejection port is shorter yet. Nothing more than 3.345" will slip easily past the ejection port angle. So that means my 140gr Accubond is starting at .060" off the rifling. Not to worry as we have scene this crop up in Tikkas and A7's with their one magazine length fits all approach.
Accuracy? Won't know until I get back to the range.

Just some of the quirks to hand loading.

Joe, you likely know this, but your loads are quite conservative.

Most 270 will handle 58.0 H4831sc with a 150 no problem.

Thanks for the magazine/throat info.

Yep I know. I just wanted to start very conservative and see what the 24" barrel will do. As more here test their own 84L's behind a chrony I would expect data to creep up close to a 270WSM.

Yep, I hit 3274 with a 130 Nosler solid base in mine with RL-19. Needless to say I backed off. There were no traditional pressure signs other than the chronagraph.

Bigwhoop,

Could you run the numbers with a Montana 7WSM? 140 and 160 grain bullets?
Thanks!

That's with talley LW's and VXIII 2.5-8 if you want to be that exact...

Jeez Ray, be careful out there! Wow!

Ok Marty, the Montana is 6# 3oz., the scope you listed is 11.5 oz plus 2.0 oz for Talleys - let's call it 7# even.
Sort of picking thru Nosler #6 for speeds, I came up with this:

Kimber 7WSM Montana, 140gr. bullet @ 3175 = 22.2 ft/lbs
Kimber 7WSM Montana, 160gr. bullet @ 2950 = 23.5 ft/lbs

Let me know if the velocities are close to what you are seeing.

Holy "GG" (gun gack)....lets make this simple. A .270 doesn't have much for recoil. The 84L is a bit lighter than most rifles so...it's gonna buck and bitch and moan a skosh bit more than the heavier rigs....

Now wasn't that easy..

Dober

Bigwhoop,

You're right on with the weight. My Montana weighs 7 lbs on the nose. My Classic 7 WSM is 7 lbs 11 oz with same rings and scope.

IIRC I'm getting right at 3,300 (+/- 20) with the 140 NBT and 140 NAB with Federal factory ammo. That stuff is so accurate I've only worked up one other hand load, a 150 NBT and it's around 3,100.

Thanks!

I like Dober's take.

Marty,
With those numbers, the calculator shows 23.6 and 25.0ft/lbs respectively.

Yes Dober, its getting real cerebral. But rather than dealing with "I think", "it seems" "I feel", we have some real numbers to compare with impressions from the bench. Just an upgraded version of the buck, bitch and moan. I think we just coined a new technical rifle loony phrase here. The BBM Factor!

Since we're getting so cerebral anyway, how do we factor in the "Legendary Montana Recoil Soak Factor" (LMRSF) in these formulas when comparing them to non-Montanas?

We're going to have to come up with a value for this and plug it in....Grin.

Seriously, it does make a difference, but of course Montana to Montana it's a wash - but it deserves some consideration when comparing them to other stuff, IMHO.

DJ

no doubt.....how a stock is built affects felt recoil, raw recoil numbers dont tell the whole story.....rather shoot my Montana in 260 than the 270 i had that was a pound and a half heavier....skinny butts really make the recoil seem worse even if the recoil numbers show other wise.....

.....skinny butts........ well now.......I don't see it in the recoil equation anywhere!

I have never been one to recoil from skinny butts.

I am kind-of partial to them.

Yes, very cogent of you Whelen. However a "skinny butt" is usually firmer and thus delivers more felt recoil.

Yes, a "skinny butt", due to the less cushion, results in more pushin...

I've had Montana's in 257 Roberts,7/08,270WSM,and 7mmWSM....the LMRSF is a figment of imagination....they don't "soak" anything.......

The 7mmWSM with Fed factory ammo pushing 160's at over 3250 was an obnoxious little beast.It got better with handloads and vels around 3000 fps.

You couldn't run fast enough to give me one in 300WSM....

They are no different than the dozens of lightweight synthetic stocked rifles I've fired over the years.

For me Bob, I totally disagree... the MT stock is far ahead of recoil comfort than, say, a Bansner or McMillan Edge, even with those two on heavier rifles. I think it has to do with Kimbers negative comb.

But everyone's body is a different thing and works better with some stock designs over others.

Brad: I wasn't implying they are not good....I think they are the best factory synthetic out there.....only meant they do not really attenuate recoil for me to any great extent.

My take on the stock gack is that it comes down to what fits peoples bods. Case in point, I used to shoot a couple Red Labels. Had friends that love them, but for me they pounded the heck out of my cheek. So, I didn't like them.

In regards to the Montana handle, it's nice, and to me it handles recoil in the same manner in which other stocks do. To me, I don't find or see any magic to it and how it's recoil friendly. But, that's just the way I see it.

Most of the rounds that people are running in the Montana's are not very sparky. To me (and I'm pretty used to shooting sparky rounds like the 340 Wby and the 375 Wby) even the WSM's don't have much for recoil in any rig. Now with the Montana I do get a bit more mzl jump cause of the light tube. But, recoil wise it's no a bigga casa grande to me.

Then again to me I don't feel that the WSM's have much for recoil in any rig. But that's just the way this hard head see's it. And I do feel that my time with the sparkier rounds has modified my thinking about recoil in ways that others probably haven't experienced much.

I've shot the Browns, Bansners, McM's, Six and who knows what else. To me I've not noticed any diff, I have however noticed when the gun isn't built in a manner in which I wish it to be.

Lastly for me, the lines of the Montana look nice, and I can shoot it but other handles fit me more to my liking.

Just like picking cars/jobs/women there is no one size fits all and or absoltues.

Or at least this is the way this guy sees it.

Dober

Bob, that's why I said "for me"... for me, the Kimber stock absolutely mitigates recoil far better than the Bansner or McMillan Hunters Compact (Edge). It's VERY noticeable.

i ordered my 280AI today

woofer

i cant build them like that with no labor bills even...

woofer

I ordered my 257 Wby today...grin

Dober

I have a 300wsm in a montana and while it jumpw a little I don't find it unpleasent at all. It is my only mag? other than my 375HH but that rifle is much heavier and stocked well and it is more of a push. I've shot 300 wby's and don't like them even little bit.

I've got one in 300 WSM, and it's amazingly user friendly.

I ran a Remington 300 Winnie in a synthetic for years, and the Montana 300 WSM is noticeably easier to me.

I shot the Montana 300 WSM a good bit several times while alternating with a Tikka T3 in 270 Win, and honestly felt at times the 300 was more pleasant to shoot.

For those that these stocks fit well, there really is a difference. My 7-08 is honestly more 243ish, as light as it is, and my 243 Montana is the softest recoiling of a whole stable of 243's we shoot a lot.

Reckon they just fit some folks better than others. I've owned standard fill and Edges in McMillan on 700's and M70's, have a few Faux Ti's in 243 and 7-08, and have a Sako 308 M75 in an Edge Classic which is lots heavier than the Kimbers, and to me, the Montana stock outshines them all in the recoil department.

DJ