The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: General Handgun Forum

Thread Tools
Old January 12, 2013, 03:15 PM   #26
Senior Member
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,321
I alway thought .45 recoil would be noticeable. Once I started buying 1911's and shooting them regularly I found the recoil to be quite unremarkable.
JWT is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 08:23 AM   #27
Senior Member
Join Date: December 14, 2004
Location: Northern Indiana
Posts: 5,206
Have you ever compared

Then you’re saying that if you shoot a revolver which doesn’t have a slide with the same caliber round its recoil is ALMOST non-extistent? I will agree that recoil is different due to the slide action delaying the pressure felt by the hand but equal and opposite reaction is the law.
And I have fired air and spring rifles. The one that had the least recoil was a double spring system where two springs bring two pistons together. Each spring works against each other and cancels any movement of the gun.
Which does prove your point, but the statement that the recoil it's not there when the slide is locked back VS when is allowed to cycle?
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits" Albert Einstine

Last edited by Ozzieman; January 13, 2013 at 08:48 AM.
Ozzieman is offline  
Old January 13, 2013, 10:26 AM   #28
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2008
Location: Somewhere on the Southern shore of Lake Travis, TX
Posts: 2,214
Then you’re saying that if you shoot a revolver which doesn’t have a slide with the same caliber round its recoil is ALMOST non-extistent?
If you are referring to my post comparing springer recoil to pneumatic recoil, I never claimed that the revolver was recoil free.
I own a Smith & Wesson model 41 in .22 LR and also a couple of revolvers in the same caliber. There is certainly recoil when I shoot the revolvers, it just feels totally different than the auto-pistol recoil.

I have also shot someone else's recoilless spring air rifle but instead of using a counterpiston, it simply had the action mounted on a rail allowing the action to recoil independently of the stock, similar to a modern artillary piece.

I have often wondered why the artillary recoil absorption system isn't used in large caliber rifles or trap shotguns. The recoil will still be there but the impulse would be spread out over time, giving the shoulder a long push instead of a short punch.
B.L.E. is offline  

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2015 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06082 seconds with 9 queries