Correlation Between Rifle Design and Perceived Recoil

[jackstrawIII]

Hey,

Have you all noticed a pattern concerning which brand/model of bolt action rifle has the least perceived recoil?

For example, I feel like (I know this is subjective) my synthetic stocked Rem 700 in 30/06 kicked much harder than my friend's synthetic stocked X-Bolt in 30/06, even though the Rem was significantly heavier. Then my Ruger M77 seemed about in the middle of the other two.

If you were to compare the leading makes/models of bolt action guns, which seem to recoil less in your opinion? Why do you think that is? Are there key elements of stock or action design that lend towards less perceived recoil?

[Scorch]

Things that make rifles kick less:
Less drop at the heel
Butt more squared up to the bore line
Proper cast off
More weight
Muzzle brakes
Lighter bullets using lighter powder charges.

[44 AMP]

What Scorch said, and most importantly, correct stock FIT to the SHOOTER.

You might also consider what the buttplate is made of.....

[jetinteriorguy]

I’d guess weight distribution might also have an affect.

[ligonierbill]

Good answers, not much to add. But an anecdotal "tale of two Mausers". First, M98 Danzig 1916, original stock and barrel "sporterized", I think by Flaig's. Second, K29 Radom 1930, modern replacement stock and Shaw barrel. No significant weight difference. Shooting 8x57 loads to European specs, the old Danzig seemed a little nasty, though it is 100 fps slower. Why?

Well, steel buttplate vs 1/2" rubber recoil pad. But also much shorter LOP. Whether made for heavy winter clothing or the smallest Heer recruit, it's short enough to alter your stance. Solution? Slip on Limbsaver. Increased LOP and a little cushion absolutely turns it into a pussycat.

[44 AMP]

GI stocks (all nations) tend to be on the short end of the length of pull range. The logic is simple, a bigger soldier can use a stock that is too short for him easier (more effectively) than a smaller solider can use one that's too long for him.

Some rifles just seem to kick me harder than others. At the age of 16, I learned that an old Win 94 .30-30 kicked me worse than a Remington 600 in .308Win. Why? Stock fit, drop, and a steel buttplate vs less drop and a plastic buttplate even though the Remington was a more powerful round with more recoil the "kick" didn't hurt as much as the Winchester .30-30.

Here's another example, of the joy of excessive drop, my Grandfather's Ithaca SxS 12ga. He had it made with the stock to his order, and it has more drop than usual, the result being that when I fire it, the gun comes UP and back.

Taught me the lesson of NOT leaving my thumb over the wrist of the stock! First time I fired it at a bird, I did that, and the gun comig UP hard split my lip with my thumb knuckle!!!

That gun doesn't "kick" any harder than anything else shooting the same ammo but it feels like a lot more because of the way the gun comes up hard.

Felt recoil is a very individual thing. My Rem 600 carbine in .308 was my Dad's "loaner" for a couple years before it came to me as my deer rifle on my 16th birthday. All the guys my Dad loaned it to for deer season griped about how it kicked the hell out of them, they usually used .30-30s. I never found it a problem, for me. Now a Rem 600 in .350 Rem mag? That KICKS!!

[MarkCO]

Fit (Fundamentals) matters. Ruger M77s kick more for me than Win70s and the Rem 700s the least. When I was young and stupid, I thought it must be something in the action. But then I swapped out a stock, and it was like a lightbulb went on.

I am less concerned with the action and barrel than the stock on rifles I buy now. And what fits me might not fit you. Unless I have shot a action/stock combination, I opt for adjustable stocks, or ones that I can easily alter to fit me properly.

[gwpercle]

Stock Fit , dimensions that fit your arm length and body build plus several other measurements , play a huge role . A stock who's dimensions fit your body will seem to have almost no recoil .
An ill fitting stock will slap you in the face and seem to recoil with the force of a mule's kick . I don't know how to explain it .
But if you ever have a professional stock maker take your measurements and build a stock to fit you you would be amazed .
I have one rifle with a stock that fits, a custom 7x57 Mauser Sporter built on a Herter's Walnut Stock , the stock was made after I took all my body measurments and ordered the correct fit and shooting it is such a pleasure ... the recoil is one you roll with ... it doesn't abuse you . I wish all my stocks fit like this but sadly the days of getting a custom stock built to your dimensions are probably gone with the wind !
Gary

[MarkCO]

Originally Posted by gwpercle

I wish all my stocks fit like this but sadly the days of getting a custom stock built to your dimensions are probably gone with the wind

Agree with the prior part.

There is a senior at the HS whose dream is to be a custom stock maker. I have an old blank for a Winchester 670A I am going to give him to restock the rifle of my youth that I gave to my youngest. It's a tad short for him now.

The kid does beautiful work, and he is still only 17 and learning the trade.

[44 AMP]

sadly the days of getting a custom stock built to your dimensions are probably gone with the wind

More like the days of an affordable custom stock built to your measurements are about gone with the wind....

good wood ones, anyway....

[jmr40]

Most of it is between your ears.

I trust the math, 20 ft lbs of recoil hurts more than 10 ft lbs of recoil regardless of the stock. But most people can handle 20 ft lbs which is about where most standard weight 30-06 rifles are. Overall weight of the rifle is significant to REAL recoil so an 8 lb rifle will recoil less than a 6 lb rifle.

Everything else being the same you can't feel the difference between 2-3 ft lbs of recoil. Somewhere around 5 ft lbs the difference becomes noticeable.

Stock shape can have a minor effect on how and where that recoil hits you. Generally speaking, something that recoils straight back is more comfortable than something with a lot of muzzle flip.

A lever action 30-30 only has about 12 ft lbs recoil. But the stocks are designed for iron sight use with a lot of drop. Which causes a lot of muzzle flip. A 308 with a modern stock design is more comfortable with 15-16 ft lbs recoil.

Wide butt plates spread that recoil out over more surface area of your shoulder and are more comfortable than skinny butt plates. The old boat paddle Ruger stocks were quite heavy, but with tiny butt pads which put all the recoil into a small part of your shoulder.

Noise tricks your brain. A louder gun tricks you into thinking you're getting kicked harder.

The effects of recoil are cumulative. You may claim that you can handle 300 WM recoil. And up to a point you can. But after so many rounds of getting pounded your brain starts to mess with your ability to shoot well. All of us can shoot more lighter recoiling rounds before we reach that point.

[jackstrawIII]

I hear so much about "stock fitment", but I don't really know what that means. Maybe I should, but I simply don't.

How does one find or create as stock that fits them well? I know what LOP is, though measuring it seems a bit vague and imprecise. Besides LOP, what else can be modified in a wood stock to make it fit better? I'm fairly handy with wood and willing to pay to have something done if I can't do it myself.

Can you guys educate me a bit on that?

[MarkCO]

Here is an article on stock fit. It generally hits the high points:

https://stepoutside.org/article/the-proper-rifle-fit/

Cheek weld is the most often missed by the average hunter.

[Paul B.]

"Noise tricks your brain. A louder gun tricks you into thinking you're getting kicked harder."

There's a lot more truth in that comment than you might think. Back in 1973 I bought a Remington 660 in .308, a relatively light weight rifle compared to the heavy 1903A3 Springfield I had used for years. A heavy smoker at that time in my life and hunting at altitudes in the 9,000+ MSL level were taking a toll on me. FWIW, I quit smoking in 1975. I bought five boxed of Winchester .308 ammo plus the dies to reload them. First trip to the "range" (open desert) that gun flat kicked the snot out of me. As I part timed on my days off with the local gunsmith we restocked that rifle with a Mannlicher style stock. Rifle stiff smacked me around and I was beginning to wonder if I'd made a mistake. I was flinching quite a bit when I shot the gun running 150 gr. Sierras. My birthday came up and my kids gave me a pair of those shooting ear muffs. I got out to the "range" with some test loads for that .308 and braced myself for what I knew was coming. At the shot, what happened to the recoil?. Must have been a load with a light charge. Shot number two was the same. The two shots were about a half inch apart. Where did the kick go? Shots 3, 4 and 5 were all neatly clustered in about 1.25" as I recall. It was the very loud muzzle blast that was causing what felt like extremely heavy recoil. Once I realized the source of the pain, shooting the gun was fun. Since then, I've restocked that rifle with an ultralight stock from H&S Precision when they they had their plant in Prescott Arizona. They used something they called fiberthane and I'd read about it. I drove up to their plant to ask about it and spoke with the owner. He sold me a stock at cost and it's been on that rifle ever since. Apparently they no longer use that material nor do they make that stock. Too bad, I really liked them. I also have one for the Remington M700 but I never could get the rifle to shoot worth spit in that one. Win one, lose one, what the heck?
Paul B.

[jackstrawIII]

Paul,

Thanks for sharing that story. I leaned that lesson very young. As a child, I grew up in a “no guns allowed” household. One day I visited my friend (about my age) who’s dad has recently bought an M1 Carbine.

Not knowing any better, we brought it out into his back yard and shot it… with no ear protection. I remember feeling incredible physical pain in my ears that day. It scared me really bad.

Since then, I’ve ALWAYS worn ear protection, even when hunting. Well, almost always. I did forget my earplugs one day a couple years ago and shot a deer with a 19” barreled 358 Win. It was so uncomfortable. Some guys don’t seem to mind… which just shocks me. I’m very sensitive to noise. At the range I wear double ear pro (plugs and muffs).

Anyways, thats my story. It’s also why I don’t use muzzle breaks. It’s just too loud, which is worse than the recoil to me. I don’t think I’m especially recoil sensitive, just looking for some real world experience regarding the relationship between stock shape and felt recoil.

For example, some guys swear that a montecarlo style stock mitigates recoil due to the better checkweld provided when using a scope... however, other guys swear that a straight stock is always better.

Thoughts?

[Ricklin]

It seems it's fairly recent the word got out on the stock design of the old muzzle loaders with that lovely rather hooked brass butt.
That hook goes on your upper arm, NOT your shoulder.
Blue, purple, even a little yellow, working up hunting loads beat me to death from the bench, prone was pretty much torture. Young and dumb, not young now.
Were I to have the opportunity again, at least I now know how to hold the darn gun.

[GeauxTide]

The Remington BDL and the Weatherby Mark V wood stocks were the best because the cheek piece kept recoil from my face. I have a couple of Bell & Carlson Sporters on a 280 and a 30-06. They both weigh 8.5# and they handle recoil in the same manner.

[Road_Clam]

And of course the design of the recoil pad. Some are cheap hard rubber some are of more quality and lessen the shoulder wallop . REAL pain is shooting a .30+ cal steel butt plated bolt action millsurp !

[44 AMP]

REAL pain is shooting a .30+ cal steel butt plated bolt action millsurp !

Pffft!

Shooting 06 from an 8 or 9lb milsurp isn't really pleasant, but its not real pain.

Real pain is shooting a 6lb Ruger No. 3 .45-70 pushing a 350gr slug to 2200fps, with the factory steel buttplate....prone!

And, there are a few guns that are even worse!

[Road_Clam]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

And, there are a few guns that are even worse!

Agreed, and my 1874 Sharps 45-70 running paper patch 540 gr bullets and 81 gr of 2F black powder ! I'm a 5'11" and boney build, and it Just about dislocates my shoulder !