I would avoid the articles on this by Brad Miller. The articles are self contradictory and often based on false premises. To cite just one example is the idea that a good way to measure recoil is to judge how far a gun moves when clamped in a Ransom rest. That really tells you not much for the purposes of this discussion.
Standard formulas on recoil are based on good formula and are accurate for what they do show. They show
mechanical recoil. That is based on Newtonian physics that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So the formulas will tell you how much force from the burning powder will show up as an equal force moving rearward as recoil. The factors here are the weight of the gun, the burning rate of the powder (hence the rate of expansion of the gas), the weight of the bullet, etc.
It will tell you nothing about perceived recoil or how it is felt to the shooter. It can't. The formulas are more applicable to long guns and artillery than to handguns. They were developed for artillery and long guns.
The
mechanical recoil force will be the same whether a gun is compensated or not. It will be the same whether the gun has a long or short barrel. It will be the same whether it's a revolver or pistol.
Felt recoil, or how that force is perceived, is different. Very different. That's effected by a variety of factors.
I encourage you to get a hold of Rinker's book. Or Hatcher's writings on this subject.
These two articles may be of some help to you.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...istols-part-1/
https://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_recoil_table.htm
tipoc