View Full Version : Mercury Recoil Reducers??
July 12, 2001, 10:34 PM
Do these, apparently wonderful, things ACTUALLY work???
I have a Savage M340 that weighs like five pounds (chambered in .30-30) and it beats me up to shoot it!!
July 13, 2001, 06:58 AM
Kye-oat, according to the customers I've installed them for, yes they do. George
July 13, 2001, 07:16 AM
Sure they work. Adding weight & mass will almost always contribute to lesser recoil. Therein lies the tradeoff for those light mountain rifles.
July 13, 2001, 07:59 PM
Everything I've read about them says they work pretty well, but I'm very leery of buying anything with mercury in it. That's a very poisonous substance, and I don't think I'd mess with it -- particularly in a mechanical device that gets the shocks and jolts that a handgun gets.
July 14, 2001, 03:45 PM
Yeah Walt is right. I now have 6 fingers on one hand and third eye from playing with mercury when I was a kid. Sorry for the sarcasium(sp), but I think this is some more of our wonderful government funding studies to make the masses fear something that may or may not be potenially dangerous. Seriously, IMHO, the potential for harm from a mercury reducer is very, very low. If not, think of the legal issues in todays sue happy society. If I were considering one to reduce recoil, I would not fear harm from leaking mercury in the case of failure. Just my two pennines.
July 15, 2001, 08:54 PM
Sorry Cris -- its got nothing to do with Government programs or PC, etc. The stuff is big-time poison.
If you know a chemist or two, talk to them. You'll see that an very minute amount of mercury can really screw you up, big time.
(If you're old enough, you might also remember when folks thought concern about ear protection while shooting was stupid... A "REAL MAN" didn't need no stinking ear protection.)
Same sort of thing, here.
July 16, 2001, 08:03 PM
My main point is that in today's PC world, that the mercury recoil reducers are perfectly safe. I am sure extensive research money has been wasted trying to destroy one of these so one of today's money-driven lawyers can start some class-action suit against the industry. I agree, hopefully some of have learned not to "play" with mercury as we did in the past, just as we have learned to use hearing and eye protection. We have also learned that lead pipes should not be used for water line, but I still handle lead responsibly when reloading, etc.
Sorry for the skepticism, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
October 7, 2005, 02:08 PM
I have a freind who is a gunsmith. He installed a recoil reducing mercury tube for a duck and goose hunter pal of his, into a Remington 11-87, 12 gauge.
We tested the 11-87 before, and after the tube was installed shooting different loads, and magnum ammunition for a comparison.
The felt recoil with the tube installed made a definate difference, and quite a suprise too.
Later this same hunter had my friend install a mercury tube into the buttstock of his Remington 700 BDL .300 Winchester Magnum rifle.
Again testing this rifle before and after the tube intallation showed a great advantage.
The balance and heft of the BDL felt better too.
This may not be a real need for everyone and with many shooters, but in these two cases it was a success.
October 8, 2005, 12:27 PM
Walt is right, Mercury is very poisonous...I highly recommend that you dont drill, cut, saw or chop on your recoil device to see what's inside.
But, I got to admit, when used properly they work! I have them in all my shotguns.
October 8, 2005, 07:17 PM
I had one of those mercury filled guide rods in my 1911. It broke open! Didn't get any on (or in) me, and the practice pit I was in didn't get hopelessly contaminated. The maker didn't want to refund my money, but was willing to send me a replacement.
It wasn't doing that much to reduce recoil anyhow, so I just gave up on the things. However, noticed a few days later that I was developing superpowers, and growing in height over a foot per day!
(It was all true up until that last sentence, cross my Harrt!)
October 9, 2005, 05:58 PM
The mercury recoil reducers are very safe if installed right,and you don't have to be a scientist to install them either,and they work,not by added weight but by the mercury absorbing some of the impact,take a bottle of coke and shake it and then do the same with mercury,same principle.
October 9, 2005, 08:28 PM
Back in my day The Dead Mule [tm] Mercury Recoil reducer was the most popular for use in Shotguns.
Now I am guilty for harping "gun fit to shooter", and do not deny I have a lot of trigger time on a shotgun.
That said [tm]
-If the gun does NOT fit shooter, MORE percieved recoil is going to occur.
-The Rule of 96s plays a part in Recoil as well.
-Hearing protection will LESSEN perceived recoil.
My Citori 3 bbl set fits me.
A fellow had the exact same 3 bbl set with the Dead Mule because of recoil concerns when he shot the 20 ga. It was obvious his Citori was beating him up pretty good.
I suggested He shoot my gun. He was leary of shooting Mine because mine did not have the Reducer ...
He could not believe it. My gun had LESS percieved recoil , even shooting the same loads. MY gun BETTER fit him - than his did.
Also he noticed MY gun had better Balance than his, I did NOT have the Dead Mule in mine to Mess up the Balance and Further interfere with Recoil.
He removed his Dead Mule. Got his gun properly fitted to him.
He also took two RIFLES that he had put Dead Mules into, Had these Fitted to him properly and AGAIN - he had less felt recoil, was able to shoot the guns better.
He also took instructions on Shotguns and Rifles and Improved his Correct Basic Fundamental skills - once he had the guns fitted.
So while there is a place for some of this new-fangled stuff....
...Gun fit to shooter, Instructions/Training and Correct basic fundametals are still the best FIRST steps to take.
October 9, 2005, 09:38 PM
Put one in my duty Glock once and only once, enough problems (Fail to feed and eject) that I no longer trust them to put them in a life and death tool. If you put one in your gun TEST TEST TEST!
October 10, 2005, 04:58 PM
But he's not talking about putting one in a Glock,he's wanting to put one in a .30 .30,which goes into the stock,in which he will feel a noticable amount of less recoil,I have one installed in a 30-06,big differance in felt recoil,also in a Puma .454 carbine,also less felt recoil.But I guess its your preferance what you want on your own firearm.I didn't even know they had one for a handgun.And also,sm is on the right track,a good fitting firearm will have less felt recoil,but if you have what you have and want to help out what you have.....I like them,but like I said,personel preferance.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.