Still recovering from hand surgery of 3 weeks ago, so I have some time on my hand (pun).



Interest (or at least curiosity) in light rifles continues to grow all over the gun industry and among consumers and net-nuts like us. Most folks realize that lighter rifles in the same caliber will kick harder/faster. The question is how much? how light can one go? what can one take? Most folks also realize that 300 ultra mags probably won't be much fun in 6 lb rifles, but how powerful can one go in a really light gun?



The following info is intended to show relative recoil levels of some industry standards that everybody knows. Most folks have a recoil limit (I know I sure do). The thing to do in planning your rifle is not get your heart set upon a cartridge before you start your research. Rather, get an idea of what you can really handle as far as recoil....be really honest because it's your money and ultimately (your) choice. You might decide that the 300 mag sounds sexy but you don't know if you can handle one in a 6-7 lb rifle (that you want). For sure, somebody on the net is going to say "awww.....I shoot 300 mags off'n my nose dude" ......fine!! (he ain't you). Go by (YOUR) experience).



For example, you may have shot somebodys 300 winny and thought to yourself "YOWCH!! that's too much for me" (OR) "well that was ok......but I sure don't want much more" (OR) "well that was easy, I can handle more" You can pick through the stuff below and find a cartidge that you like in a weight that you like that won't exceed that level.



FWIW my own comfortable limit is about 6lb. 30-06 levels. Before you sneer, look at the recoil of a 6 lb '06 vs. say a 8-9 lb. 300 winny or a 9-10 lb .338



Basics (and myths) about recoil:



Basic...Stock design is of course key, but also subjective and impossible to consider in a mathematical study.



Basic...Powder weight has a greater effect on recoil than bullet weight. It is a FACT that 15 gr. of powder will affect recoil more than 15 gr. of bullet. The reason is that while the bullet may leave say 3000 fps, the powder (gas) has a much higher exit velocity, therefore having more effect. I use the recoil calculator on Beartooth Bullets site because it is programmed correctly to consider this.



Myth:....Slow Push from bigger calibers.... This comes from the practice of bigger calibers (say 375 H&H) being built on heavier rifles. A 10-11 lb (common) 375 will recoil slower than a 9 lb (common) 300 winny. But when both are in the same weight rifle, the .375 hits harder (AND) faster.



Myth:..."If you load a magnum down to std case velocity it gives less recoil than the std cartridge because of lower pressures" Pressure has nothing directly to do with recoil. However, if you load down a 300 winny to '06 velocities it (will) give much lower recoil than the std 300 winny load, but a little more than the '06 load.



Ballistics for this study were chosen from a cross section of sources.



Generally the absolute fastest/hottest load that I could find for each cartridge was ignored. BTW: when you see one powder/load combo, in one source, that delivers something like 100-150 fps more than any other combo/source, be suspicious and don't assume that is the new standard......it probably isn't



Common bullet weights were chosen for each cartridge.



Info is listed as follows: Cartridge....bullet wt./powder chg./velocity. Rifle weights are listed in 1 lb. increments. Recoil numbers are Recoil energy ft. lbs/recoil velocity in fps.



Industry Stds:..............10lb.........9...........8..........7......

375.....270/70/2700......36/15.....40/17....44/19....51/22

338..225/72/2800.........31/14.....34/16....38/18....44/20

300....180/70/3100......28/13.....31/15....35/17....40/19

7 RM...160/62/3050....................24/13....27/15....30/17

3006...180/58/2775....................21/12....24/14....28/16



Generally factory rifles will weigh (scoped) roughly 10 lb for 375, 9 lb for 300-7RM, 8 lb. for '06.



Ultra-light contenders........8lb.........7..........6...........5

300W 180/70/3100.......35/17....40/19.....46/22

300wsm 180/68/3050....33/16....37/19.....44/22

7 saum...160/58/2950...24/14.....27/16.....31/18

3006......180/58/2775....24/14....28/16......32/19

270W.....130/58/3100...20/13....23/15.......27/17

308.........165/44/2800...18/12...21/14.......25/16....30/20

7/08........140/44/2850....15/11...18/13.....21/15.....25/18

260R.......125/45/2975....15/11....17/12....19/14.....23/17

257R.......100/45/3100....12/10....14/11....16/13.....19/16



This was an interesting exercise for me. Hopefully, someone considering a light or ultra-light rifle can use this info as well.



JimF

dang, you are full of useable info!!
i see the 7saum looks very pleasing. compared to the 7 mag with almost identical loads it shows over 20% less recoil while only 100 fps difference for same bullet. that says to me the saum would definately get the nod.........
any idea why?
i also sent you a pm with more questions<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
woofer

PM'd you back.......

When you consider recoil, useful power, rifle weight etc.....there are some bargains out there and the 7 SAUM is definitely one of them.

JimF

OOOOOOOPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSS!!!....... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />



I transposed the figures on the 7RMag line. The numbers were off by one weight column (just fixed it). The 7 SAUM still looks really good but not as much better as it did.



JimF

funny, i looked at that twice too before i pm'ed you and i didn't see it either. still looks nice though..
woofer

Jim

Excellent info and I appreciate the mention of the site! I haven't been there in a long time and forgot about their calculators.

It makes an argument for using light for caliber X type bullets in the lightweights doesn't it?

I would also use 165's in the .30-06...Although I'm not a user I've heard JJHack and other 06 fans say they have always worked well for them. Just a thought.
Mike

rotr:

Re: light for caliber.......Absolutely!!

I posted up the commonly used weights without consideration to what I might use myself. In fact, I'd go 165's or even 150's in the .308 calibers and I haven't recently used anything over a 140 in my small case sevens. (my new very best fave is the 130 XBT for my 284) I've also become fond of the 180 Btip in my 338-08 (wish the 175-185 X's shot better in that one).

If you consider the lighter bullets, it opens up the weight possibilities for somebody that wants something really light, but still does not want to get their ears kicked off their heads. For most any critter not wearing armor, a .308/150 or a 7mm/120-130 (in "X" configuration) should/would do the job all day every day.

In fact one of the purposes for this post was to let shooters that "want" a really light rifle know that they can have one and not really sacrifice much, if anything, in capabilities. They just need to honestly figure out what their personal limits really are, then pick a weight/cartridge that fits.

JimF

Jim,

Good practical information!

The late great Finn Aagard ( a man of real experience) considered the 308 with a 150gr X bullet as good enough for most anything that could be hunted here and for Africa.

JimF,

Excellent and interesting post. I don't disagree, well maybe just a little.

Back 27 years ago I built my first custom rifle, a standard Ruger 77 in 30-06, 22" barrel, rechambered to 30-338, and restocked in a very light black walnut stock by Bishop. Total weight with scope (B&L straight 4x) was 8lbs 1 oz.

Anyway, I loaded 200 grain Nosler partitions, over 70 grains of old surplus 4831. Recoil from the bench was brisk, but manageable. These were pre-chrono days but I estimated this load @ around 2800 FPS.

I then loaded up a batch 150 grain Noslers parts, and loaded them over 78 grains 4831 (for around 3300 FPS), These beat the snot out of me. They were very uncomfortable to shoot. The free recoil of the 200's was heavier, but the recoil velocity of the 150's really bothered me.

Nothing has really changed, my 375 H&H (9lbs, loaded and scoped) is fun to shoot with 270's @ 2700 or 300's @ 2600, but the 235 grain Barnes Blue Meanies @ 2900, are very unpleasant from the bench. In field positions it does not matter, as the body rolls with the recoil.

I may be an aberation in being sensitive to recoil velocity, (as opposed to free recoil) but I don't think so.

I have found that 10% of shooters will flinch some at anything that goes bang. Another 10% can handle anything, recoil of any kind does not bother them at all.

The rest of us 80% have limits that we cannot exceed. For some this means the 375 H&H, others my be higher or lower. I can fire my 458 Win Mag 20-25 times from the bench before I decide that mowing the lawn has more appeal. But sit me behind a 340 Weatherby (in the same weight rifle as my .458 about 9.5 lbs) with 250 Noslers cooking along @ 2900 FPS, and after 5 rounds, I'm ready to do housework, any housework.

So the myth of slow pushing big bores my not be as much of a myth as you believe.

Regards,

Bob

I find the 235's(be them Speer's or XLC's) in the Six-Bits or it's Improved version,to be heap big friendly,as do all my pards. I mean night and day different.

I gotta much disagree with that prognosis...................

Big stick,

You are of course free to disagree, but because 235's are more pleasant for you, just means we aren' t all built from the same ........big stick?

Recoil velocity sensitivity is something I've had to live with.

When I was serious about shotgunning (sporting clays competion), I routinely shot between 8 and 10 thousand, 12 gauge shells a year. The recoil never bothered me. My shotgun (Perazzi MX 8 32" barrels) weighed well over 8 lbs., but 1 1/8 ozs of lead @ 1225 FPS is no cake walk, not when you shoot over 700 shells per week.

So because you and your buds think 235's are just the berries, and conversly I don't, does not mean I'm wrong, just different.

Regards,

Bob

I never said "all".

However,in that particular chambering I feel the difference is much pronounced and the very subject has been bantied about here,by pards and I(as well as our spouse's). All here have a 235gr "plinking" load,for trigger time. Plinking meaning a lighter projectile,not soft loaded.

I simply stated that the opinion of myself and others I shoot with,are seperate from your findings on this matter.

In particular,I feel the 235 Speer to be a splendid practice load for the 375H&H and 375H&H Improved(I liked more length in my 378) and is often suprisingly accurate. It is readily available,readily affordable and recoils in a manner seperate from the felt recoil energies of the other(heavier) projectiles mentioned. That unless of course one can snag the LS&B "seconds" on the Hornie 270gr SP,then they are a most viable(affordable) practice round and I happen to also shoot them by the bushel for that very reason($).

My favorite 375H&H is pretty light(basically an AWR clone) and 'tis the lighter weight rifles that recoil faster. If it isn't an accurate barometer to weigh the phenomenon discussed,I don't know what is? Should add that all of the rifles I am thinking of are unbraked.

I think the 270's are the "berries" in that diameter,as an all arounder,but there are few flies on a robust 235(XLC) and diminished recoil is amongst the attributes.

To be more concise,I'd speculate that the findings you relate on the matter are off the beaten path.........................

As an aside,I'd be curious to see what the computer generated figures dictate for the weights you've mentioned,in say an 8lb rifle?

Might you infer that the 300's develop lesser numbers across the board,or that their felt recoil is an anomoly that slides in under that data's radar?............................

Shadow:

First the purpose of the post in general was to help folks use some real comparisons to identify a level of recoil they can handle, then translate that into a caliber and rifle weight choice.

FWIW: I have shot enough 375's and a current sub 6 lb 338-08 to say that to me, they all come back hard. I have yet to feel a 375 that felt like a big 'ol "aw shucks" push on the shoulder.

I'd hate for somebody to put up a lighter rifle in say a 338 mag. (believing that it'll be a slow shove for recoil). That person might get their fillings loosened and be dissapointed in their choice.

Your impressions may well tell you otherwise or give you opposite reactions to Stick for example. I'm not picking on you at all, I believe that your senses tell you what you say and Sticks tell him something else. The numbers don't lie. They give us real concrete comparisons. This very thing is why individual anecdotes about recoil are subjective and sometimes unreliable.

30/338 8 lb rifle: the high velocity 150 gr. load has both more recoil energy and more recoil velocity but you think you are feeling the velocity and not the energy.

200/70/2800 32/16
150/78/3300 35/17

375 H&H 9 lb rifle: the 270 gr and 235 gr. loads @ the velocities you specify have nearly identical recoil energy figures and identical recoil velocity. Yet you think the 235 gr. load is much harder on you than the 270's, while Stick feels the opposite.

270/70/2700 40/17
235/74/2900 39/17

Again, no flames intended, and I appreciate your comments..... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />


JimF

Everybody is different,that is a given and what works for one,may be just about the damned biggest abortion ever created,for another.

Felt recoil is very subjective and rates right up there with stock fit IMHO.

I dislike 300's that are wooded,in the .375" diameter. Grew to hate them in my 378,as they really put the wood to me. Have also noticed that most that load that weight in the H&H,purposely load them soft,so as to reduce recoil.

According to my "kickometer" the 235's are like a punch to the shoulder and full house 300's rate a full value kick in the nuts in comparison.

Thoughts?..........................

I think those numbers for the .375 compared to the 43/19 of my .338 with 200gr bullets are for wooosies <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

It's an eye opener when you torch one off!!

Just kidding people, so no flames!

I do have a buddy who says he hates that rifle though <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Mike

Stick,



Funny you should ask, cause I was just running the numbers. Never ran my loads through recoil calculator. This is the one I used, http://benchrest.com/sst/recoil.html



These are my loads, my rifle, Mauser Oberndorf Sporter, 25" barrel, .650 @ muzzle, Redfield bases, Weaver K2.5, weight 9.1 lbs.:



235 Blue Meanies, 2986 FPS, 79 grains RL-15, 43R/17RV

270 Grain Swift, 2709 FPS, 73 grains RL-15, 40R/17RV

300 Barnes Super Solids, 2581 FPS 70 grains RL-15, 42R/17RV



Interesting, the 235's had the most recoil, but identical recoil velocity to the 270's and 300's.



Also ran my buds rifle, that I reloaded for, weighed and hate to shoot. Sako L691 .340 Weatherby, weight 9.3 Lbs. 26" barrel



250 Nosler Partition, 94 Grains H-1000, 2879 Fps, 48R/18RV



No wonder I hate it.



Ran my 458 just for fun:



Action pre- 64 Win model 70, Brown Precision Stock, 21" barrel, .725 @ muzzle, Leupold QR rings and bases, Leupold 3x, 9.4 lbs



450 Grain Barnes X, 61 Grains RL-7, 2144 FPS, 48R/18RV



Same as the .340, and this one I like to shoot. I guess I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Go figure.



Bob

There's a subjective factor involved in recoil that I can't put a finger on. (Blast??) I thinks I've of the term recoil momentum before but can't find any references for it. I suppose that might be something to consider. That still does not explain why you and Shadow would feel exactly the opposite things about the 235 vs. 270 loads.

I would say that in the case of the 375 I picked fairly "standard" loads like the old "classic" 270/70/4064 for 2700.

If your loads with the 300's are something like 300/80/4350/ for 2650 that calculates out to 48/19 that's a lot bigger hit than 39/17.

Cartridges like that make me shake in my shoes these days.

JimF

JimF & Stick,



No offence taken, or given. Just an interesting discussion.



In shotgunning gun fit is everything. Your eye is the rear sight. Remembering back to my shotgun competion days, I always had a problem with face slap. Not recoil. Face slap occurs when the gun recoils up and into your face, and after 200 rounds or so I would have a mouse (knot) under my right eye.



I cured it on my Perazzi, by lowering the front comb (making it a straight comb) and by adding negative pitch spacers thus reducing the stock pitch to 0%. I found that stock pitch is what really beat up my face. It just took me 10,000 rounds or so to figure it out (I'm a slow learner).



I guess subjectively, the more it hit my face, the more uncomfortable I felt. Also it could be that the rifles that fit me well, have less pitch, and don't bust me in the chops.



I never thought of pitch, in a rifle stock context until we had this discussion. Interesting!!!



Thanks,



Bob

You know I find this all curious also. I had a 9.5 lbs 7mag that I felt had awful recoil, and my new 6 lbs lightweight I don't think is to rough. But when I run the numbers the lightweight should be a ton harder then the 7 mag?

23/12 vs. 39/21

I guess it goes to show that most of recoil is probably between the ears, at least for me! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.

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 (130@3150). 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

I have a fairly ltwt 375-cal rifle and using a 300gr Nosler the recoil difference between 2550+ fps and 2500 fps is amazing and if you drop down to around 2460 fps the rifle is a real "pussy-cat" to shoot. I've been to almost 2600 fps and it wasn't fun...after a 3-shot group I pulled the remainer of the bullets as it wasn't fun at all.

The Boy remains CONVINCED that his 7 Shamu recoils less than his 7-08.

Both are Model Seven based,wearing McMillan handles and 6x42's.

I just nod my head in agreement........................(grin)

My point is that the recoil pad is not in the equation and it should be. The lack of or composition of a recoil pad is a major factor in felt recoil.

99:



You are absolutely correct, but your point is not germane to the goal of the original post (as stock fit also is not).



When folks start getting the hankering for something lighter and handier, they rightfully get concerned about recoil. When all they've ever shot is a 9 lb '06 or 300 winny or whatever, they have no idea what to expect from a 6 lb. something or other. Since I've been posting about my stupidly light rifles, I've received dozens of PM's about this subject.



I simply wanted to provide a frame of reference that anyone could grasp. That is if they know the recoil level of a certain combo that they feel is a comfortable maximum for them. (As an example a 9 lb 7 rem mag) then they can simply apply that recoil level to the chart and find the cartridges that give similar levels in a rifle of their desired weight. If they already know the caliber they want, they can then figure out how light they can go without knocking their ears off.



In discussing a subject like this, stock fit and pad selection should be optimal and considered as a given. Otherwise there are simply too many subjective variables to reach a conclusion.



JimF

Dang you guys, you could develop a flinch just reading this stuff! 7lb. 7 mag is comfortable to shoot except for prone in a t-shirt for very many rounds. Have wanted to lighten up my .338 but in the back of my mind wondering when do you cross that line of what you're comfortable with. Shot my bud's .458 Lott off hand a couple of weeks ago, I want more of it, but not from the bench, he can do load development and I'll help him burn up some of that cheap ammo <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Can't wait to get my .338 in my new Macmillan (Dang you Stick, Mac stocks, Ingram knives.....my wife doesn't even know who you are, but pretty sure she hates you <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />) gonna have to have the .338 refinished and when I do, have the barrel fluted, chopped to 23" and drill a hole in the bolt handle, don't believe I'll relieve the action as too many holes is a good place for leaves and chit to hang up in. Now that .45/70 with hot loads at 7lbs. has some snort, not bad on the shoulder but man does the middle finger take a whacking from the lever! Had to show my pards which finger was crying after shooting it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> Good thread JimF, you is some good 411 son. 1ak

Interesting post. Two weeks ago, I went antelope hunting on a ranch with another hunter in camp. We both went to the practice range to make sure our rifles were still sighted in. One shot from the Ruger #1, ho hum.

The other guy pulled a brand-new, Tikka T3 out of the case. It was chambered for .300 Win Mag. He handed it to me to examine. Wow, very light. How do you like it, I asked. Well, it really kicks, was the answer.

First shot at paper, 100 yards, was 4" low. A second shot managed to get closer to center.

Two days later, I watched him miss two easy shots, from a rest, at around 250 yards. He wasn't sure if he was over, under, or what. The next day he connected, on a 75 yard opportunity.

I have to believe that recoil, and fear of same, had something to do with all this.

I never caught this thread the first time around. Since I like big bores, I've learned to deal with recoil. If you want to shoot a given caliber, then you can set up a gun to make it shootable. I think it's when folks look at the numbers vs making the gun shootable, ie target gun weight, target bullet and velocity, and end up with something that is a pleasure to carry, but a nightmare to shoot.

Honestly, the best cure for shooting peppier small and medium bores is to shoot a big bore. I've fired my previous 458 lott and lightweight .308 side by side, and the .308 litterly fealt recoilless after firing the 458.

As far as powder charge weight affecting recoil, it is not only the charge weight, but the burning rate. Someone earlier mentioned RL 15 compared to 4350 as I recall in a 338 win mag. Well, I had the same experience in my 350 Rigby. I worked up to 66 gr of RL 15 under a 250 gr for 2700 fps even, and 72 gr 4350 under same bullet for identicle velocity. The RL 15 load was just fine, the 4350 was one of the rudest cheek slapping loads I've fired from any gun.

As far as slow push, I've pushed 600 gr bullets to 2200 fps in my 500 Jeffrey by burning 100 gr of Varget, and it wasn't an unpleasant load to shoot off the bench. It did roll me back considerably upon firing, and the sand bags seemed to fall on the ground after every shot, but I was having fun.

I've had days where the bolt slap from my 10/22 caused me to flinch, other days I'd wished I had more 458 lott ammo to burn.

We aren't talking about guns to shoot 50 or 100 shot strings at targets. A lightweight wizzum can be handled by most, just work up some loads, and don't fire off too many rounds in a session. That's what a 22 rf is for!

Last year I sent quite a few round down range in my 7.7lb STA. Early on it rapped my pretty good, even with a heavy jacket. Later in the summer I would shoot in a T-shirt without any problem. Just got used to it and, like was mentioned, the fit was good.

All my rifles wear them excecpt the .22's

Boyoyboy!!.........The subject of recoil is apparently one that interests many folks. Since this thread was resurrected, I've had several more PM's about light rifle recoil etc. Here are some more general thoughts.

Most people that flinch badly don't know it or won't admit it. I spend several weekends each summer as a "range moderator" (litter police) at our local shooting area. The number of folks that I see with rifles of all flavors that can't keep their shots in a 6" bull @ 100 is scary.

As has been suggested, I too believe that an experienced shooter can adapt to almost anything (within reason). The problem is that the average Joey shooter won't take the time or spend the bucks on the ammo. He thinks that because 2 or 3 of his 10 shots are in the X ring, he's good to go. He totally ignores the other 7-8 shots that look like a buckshot pattern.

BTW: this same guy usually thinks that his whizbanger "shoots flat to 500 yds" too.

It is my opinion, that the amount of recoil that one can "tolerate" and the amount that one can sustain while doing their best shooting are usually two different things. A year ago, I thought that my 6 lb. 338-08 was about as much gun as I could handle. Now, after several hunded rounds through it and the even lighter 284 and 6.5x284, I am more comfortable and realize that I could take more. However, it is unlikely that I will intentionally build a rifle that delivers more recoil than what these three do. I am fully aware that I handle the recoil better and therefore shoot better with the lighter recoiling loads for each rifle.

Just another penny in the pot and YMMV as always.

JimF

Rick, my 338 weighs in at just a hair under 8lbs. Recoil from it doesnt bother me, I attribute that to the stock that I bought from you.
It just works great for the recoil factor.

There are 2 factors in recoil.
One is how much free recoil that is generated. This is a mathmatical computation that can be calculated to a high degree of accuracy if all of the factors are included such as gun weight, projectile weight, velocity, powder charge weight etc..
The second factor is how the recoil is handled. Stock fit, recoil pad construction, stock design etc. are determine how the recoil is delivered to the shooters body. If you spead the same amount of recoil over a 1 1/2" pad vs over a 3/4" Pad one is handled much more "comfortably" than the other etc.. I've yet to see a good mathmatical model for this one, so until then it will have to remain subjective.
While there is only so much you can do with a large amount of recoil the 2nd factor can play a huge difference in how much an individual shooter can handle.
The slower recoil factor may be a myth but I can introduce you to dozens of black powder shooters that will swear to you that it's true.......DJ

I guess I better start this one with a <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> so no-one gets the wrong idea.



I've got it! We just have to start a campain through our gun writer friends on the board to advocate responsible hang tag ratings on factory firearms. All rifles will contain a JFRR (JimF Recoil Rating <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />) so that the shooter understands and can compare recoil in various firearms in various chamberings before he or she plunks down the green. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



Of course, in order to be litigation free and socially acceptable to all, it would have to contain a disclaimer such as:

if your hat falls off and your gun is pointed skyward then it might be a bit much. i have learned to hang bags of sand off the end of the barrel and convince others the shoot my guns. much more entertaining <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
if your shooting 70 grains of powder and your gun weighs under 6# then you will get popped. newtons rules, not mine. hike up your skirt and let then blood flow where it may <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
woofer

dj, good post...

djp:

(a) You restate the obvious as others have. Stock fit and pad design are of course huge factors. However, when making a decision on rifle weight and caliber choice for a new gun, one would assume that those factors would be equal. Otherwise the comparisons are pointless.

(b) With your black powder analogy, you again make a redundant point. Without calculating recoil velocity of a BP load I would stipulate that recoil velocity would probably be substantially lower than a smokeless centerfire. That difference might therefore be noticable. My point was that the "slow push" reputation of some big bore centerfires comes from the fact that they are generally in much heavier rifles. When fired in similar weight rifles, the big bores come back hard (and fast) just like the hotter small bores do.

So...............neither of your points are incorrect, nor would they get any argument from me. However, when someone is trying to figure out how much recoil they can take in order to decide on a rifle weight and caliber, your points are simply not germane to the process.

JimF

Problem is most people borrow from a bud to see if they can tolerate the latest choice and stock, fit, pad, and load is whatever's handy. The result is all thing's ain't equal.

Agreed that the only way to tell what you can handle weight wise is equalize the other factors first, but most don't...

Hence the reason for the information in the original post.

JimF

Jim F,

What kind of rifle is your 6.5X284? I have two light rifles, both ULA. a .300 win mag and the 6.5x 284. I practice a lot with the 6.5 so the trasition to the .300 wasnt too dificult. It certainly does come back and is pretty lively, but easily managed. To me the bigger transition was switching from hunting with fairly heavy rifles. It was harder to hold the light rifles steady from field positions and my technique off the bench is different, but now that I am used to them they work just fine. I do think a light crisp trigger is more important on a light rifle than on a heavy rifle. Just shot a nice gtrzzly in alaska at about 200 + yards from a sitting position and was able to place my shot right where I wanted.

BD

lefty:

Mine is built on a highly modified M-600. With a #1 fluted barrel @ 21" it weighs in at 4lb. 15 0z. all up with a 2x7x28 compact. Stock is a non cataloged MPI model, somewhat modified as well.

I absoluteterly agree on the light trigger and on shooting technique. These specialized rifles are not for everybody nor are they the only types of rifles I'll own. They are however, the best tool for the job in some cases. (backpacking, steep gnarly terrain, etc.)

JimF

JimF,
Thanks for the reply. Your absolutley right about these rifles being ideal for a backpack hunt. My grizzly hunt a few weeks ago was a classic example. We were dpopped of one at a time with the super cub and backpacked/hunted to our pick up point about 30 miles away. Everything we had was on our backs. Three years ago I did a similar trip with a Weatherby accu-mark. I swore I would never carry a heavy rifle again! I think I still have a groove in my shoulder from carrying it. Backpacking is a great way to hunt, your just right there with the game and light rifles just make it all more managable. The rifle worked great and didnt even noticethe recoil.







Lefty

Read somebody awhile back that claimed that 12-13 fps was the comfort threshold for most folks... Never gave it half the thought you fellas are.

If you shoot a lot you will be more tolerant of poor stock design and heavy loads. If you're a 2 week fall warrior with a hurried trip to the range just prior...likely you'll not want to shoot your buddies .338WM. If you shoot 3.5" 12 Ga for ducks, you're probably wondering what all this hooey is about. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

If you have problems finding the time to shoot a bunch, take up skeet or trap. 10,000-15,000 rounds a year will have a positive influence on your ability to absord recoil and keep on smiling.

- You can't "assume" that these factors are equal. Often Light rifles built in powerful calibers are made with better designed stocks than is the norm. I would say that a shooter might only be able to tolerate a 308 winchester in a Kimber 84M for example because of it's excellent stock design and find a 243 of the same weight but poorer stock design unpleasant.
- I've had 2 nearly identical rifles a Sako M-75 Delux and a Stainless M-75 in 300 RUM. The Wood rifle definately hurt more to shoot - I got a headache after about 10-15rds. I've shot the Stainless 30-40rds at a sitting without the same effect to my head. I beleive that a harder recoil pad and the wood being stiffer than the synthetic stock are the culprits. Again how the recoil is transfered to your body is critical to tolerance.
-Gas operated firearms typically recoil less and are more pleasant to shoot since they spread the recoil over a longer period. Again how the recoil is delivered to your body is a major factor in comfort.
I agree with those that suggest that the best way to determine your own level of tolerance is to try specific rifles in specific calibers.

djp:

I must be doing a poor job of making the point of this thread understandable. The point was not to compare recoil of a .308 in one rifle vs. a 270 in another rifle vs. a 7 SAUM in something else. Nor was it intended to compare recoil of the same cartridge in two different types of stock.

It was intended to provide a set of comparative recoil numbers as they relate to caliber choice and rifle weight. When you start out to build up a new light rifle, it's likely that you would want to consider an optimal stock design and pad no matter what caliber you chose or weight you decide you'd like to achieve.

I do not discount the factors that you cite. They are certainly valid. They simply do not fall within the scope of the original discussion.

JimF

Within the context of having a rifle built I see your point. I would think however for every 1 person who builds a custom light rifle there will be 10 or more who buy a Kimber, Finnlite or other factory light rifle where fit will be another variable important to consider........DJ

"hang tag ratings on factory firearms. All rifles will contain a JFRR (JimF Recoil Rating" - well, I know of a least one case where the "hang tag" might have been useful. this fellow was at the bass pro shop in atlanta looking for a deer rifle. the guy behind gthe counter handed him a weatherby, chambered in 240 weatherby mag!!! I observed from a distance and the fellow eventually walked away. I wanted to intervene but did not. I did find the recoil calculator posted earlier in this post useful and I was comparing the 7.62x39 my nine year old shoots to the 250 savage that I may move him up to this season. the 250 has an increase in recoil of 29%. they both seem about the same to me and are both really low on the recoil scale of 7 & 9. still, interesting.

Recoil is an almost totally subjective topic. I know when I work through a range of loads in say my 338-08, I notice the difference and the increase, but for a while, it does not bother me. Then, I reach the point where I am at my limit and it suddenly does bother me.

180's-200's No problem............................................. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
225's.........Hmmm, well I felt that one.........................<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />
250's.....Well alrighty then.....I'm goin' home now......... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

FWIW: A friend of mine owned a gun shop in Reno Nv. for decades. (He recently retired) He always loved selling Ultra-mags because he was pretty sure he'd get the chance to sell it at least once or twice more. (along with the unused ammo)

JimF

I just have this feeling that the 7 lb all up 340 weatherby Wayne York made is gonna kick the crap out of me with 225 bulets.

Unless, the stock is as good as he says, and the break is equally good.

We'll see

I'm always totally "blown away" amazed at the difference that taking 300 or so feet per second off of a bullet's speed - makes on felt recoil.

Usually, doing so takes off less than 4 inches of trajectory at 400 yards - in other words - it doesn't matter.

In an active lifetime of hunting - I've never noticed any differance in how fast the game goes down - from a hit from either speed.

And - 300 fps or so - is about the average difference in velocity from the "average" magnum vs the "average" standard caliber.

PLUS - the average standard (compared to the average magnum) has about 5 to 10 times the accurate barrel life, half the muzzle blast, half the recoil and uses half the powder.

In short - it's a slam dunk in favour of non-magnum cartidges. Except for the .375 and bigger (which can really use the extra powder) magnums primary advantage is that they support the economy - when people buy guns they didn't really need if they already owned a standard of the same caliber.