Posting this for the ballistics gurus that know more than I. This site is an outstanding information resource.

From what I have heard 404 Jeff has the least recoil of the 40s due to its slower factory velocity of around 2100 fps. Then the 416 Remington is supposed to have 5-6% less recoil than the Rigby (same weight rifle, both shooting standard 400 grain factory ammo). My question is how is that possible?

The Remington is duplicating Rigby ballistics with an equal weight bullet in a higher pressure, smaller cartridge case. It seems to me that it would have equal recoil or possibly more, due to greater pressure.

What am I missing?

Thanks,

Hugh

IHugh:

I have an 11# Heym bolt in 404 and it is a puusy cat at 2300fps. I can't compare it to a Rigby or Rem as I have not shot them. I also have, or have had, a 375 H&H, 450 NE, 470 NE, 425 WR and a good friend's 500/416. The 404 kicks about the least...somewhat on par with the 375. The 500/416 kicks the most....at least it feels as much as the 470. None are bad from the sticks and a bench session is not an all day affair.

I LOVE the 404....but I'm biased.

Gary
DRSS
NRA Lifer
SCI
DSC

I sort of believed the same thing because I figured the amount of powder used in a cartridge didn't make any difference and guys on AR trying to tell me it had an effect on recoil were full of it. But indeed it is true and you can actually tell the difference between 115 gr. and 85 gr. loads in a 470 NE for example.

Same effect for the 416 Rem and Rigby.

Here is a recoil calculator that will show you the effect:

http://huntamerica.com/recoil_calculator/

I think the important thing to remember about the powder charge's effect on recoil is that its velocity is not affected by the bullet's velocity.

Disclaimer This is second hand information.
When recoil is calculated the weight of the powder charge is factored into the equation with a velocity of something like 8,000 fps.

So a little more powder means a lot more recoil. I believe pressure has no effect on recoil.

Jason

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
But indeed it is true and you can actually tell the difference between 115 gr. and 85 gr. loads in a 470 NE for example. Same effect for the 416 Rem and Rigby.

Ditto Will, you can feel the difference. I can feel the difference in recoil between faster and slower powders with the same weight load. The 470 I had was stout in recoil with IMR 4831 load (106 grains) and with IMR 4350 (100 grains) it was not stout at all. Granted the load was six grains of powder different but objectively less with the IMR 4350.

Dirk

I've never felt pressure to have any effect on recoil. The only things that mattered were the weight of the bullet, the amount of powder and the velocity. I've fired a couple of 404s that were loaded to about 2350fps and they seemed about the same to me as my 416Rem loaded to same velocity. My Rigby burns 20gr more powder to achieve the same velocity, and it definitely kicks more...that 20grs of powder is the only difference. When I was messing about with double rifles I tried both R15 with poly filler and 4831 with no filler. In both my 500-3" and my 470 I found the recoil a lot heavier with the 4831 loads...and not nearly as accurate.

quote:

Disclaimer This is second hand information.
When recoil is calculated the weight of the powder charge is factored into the equation with a velocity of something like 8,000 fps.

On the page that Will showed (which is the one I now use), the powder charge velocity is 1.75 times the bullet velocity. (This is probably only important if you "roll your own" programs like I do.) The reason I know this is because I viewed the source code of that page and it gives their calculation.

quote:

powder charge velocity is 1.75 times the bullet velocity.

Good for you.

I wonder if that is reality. I've used 4000 fps for no good reason. I've heard 6000 fps being used. Higher pressure loads result in higher bullet velocity and on the same hand should give higher gas velocity.

Anyone know what is appropriate? Is 1.75 times the bullet velocity close enough?

Art Alpins's "example problem" in Any Shot You Want gives a pressure of 300 psi by the time a 30 cal. bullet exists a 24" barrel at 3267 fps. If you use a formula that I think I remember as

delta P = f (rho) x V^2/ (2 g)

the velocity is calculated as 6030 fps/f, where f is a friction factor for the existing gas. I have no more books so I have no idea what f might be off the top of my head. "f" would be the friction factor (f = or < 1)for gas flow through a "sudden expansion."

Using the 1.75 multiplier in the recoil calculator, 1.75 (3267 fps) = 5717 fps. So maybe the "1.75" factor is a good approximation (????).

At a bullet exit velocity of 2150 fps like in a 458 WM, the gas vel. would be 1.75 (2150) = 3762 fps. This would imply a pressure of 116/f psi. I wonder if that is realistic?

So maybe "1.75" is a good number.

In my opinion people should shoot more and worry less about recoil.

Just close your eyes and yank the trigger...

quote:

I wonder if that is reality.

I honestly don't know. I imagine there are probably 100 or so recoil calculators floating around. I'm starting to think you might have to take into consideration the density of the powder itself if you wanted to get really, really precise. A lower density powder might go faster than a higher density powder, for instance. Since powder densities probably vary widely, we're likely just stuck with approximations. But that's just my theory. And you have to bear in mind that I'm sometimes full of it.



P.S. to Will

I just noticed this in your post

quote:

If you use a formula that I think I remember as

delta P = f (rho) x V^2/ (2 g)

If the formula has "rho" in it, then that's for sure about density. So it looks like I may have been close to half right this time.

quote:

In my opinion people should shoot more and worry less about recoil.

Just close your eyes and yank the trigger...

My guess is if you have to ask about recoil, you don't need a .416 Rigby.

Thanks for the input. I guess the 458 Lott and 505 Gibbs are entirely of consideration!



Hugh

quote:

I just noticed this in your post


quote:
If you use a formula that I think I remember as

delta P = f (rho) x V^2/ (2 g)



If the formula has "rho" in it, then that's for sure about density. So it looks like I may have been close to half right this time.

Yeah in the sample calculation, I just used density of air at standard T&P, 0.0765 lb/ft^3, which isn't correct in this case, but got me in the ballpark for velocity.

I'll find out, Hugh.....I have a twin to my 404 coming....except in 500 Jeffery.

Gary
DRSS
NRA Lifer
SCI
DSC

quote:

just used density of air at standard T&P, 0.0765 lb/ft^3, which isn't correct in this case, but got me in the ballpark for velocity

Oh. That rho. The air density rho.

After some rethinking, I believe that it's not the powder that has the velocity but the gases resulting from the combustion of the powder that have the velocity. That would seem to be a very involved calculation, so I'm pretty well satisfied with reasonable approximations.

But I do think that, generally speaking, the original 400 grain .404 load would very likely have less recoil than many of the larger .416's, especially the Rigby.

But I'm looking forward to shooting both so I can know for sure.

If it turns out that I'm full of it (again), I'm probably going to be using my old physics books as kindling for the fireplace this winter.

My thanks to the posters on this thread who have, at least, begun to give me some outlines of an answer to something that has puzzled me for years. I never have been particularly sensitive to recoil -within limits, of course -and nonetheless, I found the recoil of the 7mm Rem. Mag. to be particularly unpleasant. Similarly, I found several shots from a friend's Ruger No.1 in 416 Rem or Rigby, (I just don't recall which today) to be no walk in the park. Having said this, I shot a 375 H&H in several rifles probably 2500-3000 times and was never bothered at all. I shot my PH's 470 NE and equally enjoyed shooting it. I'm leaning towards the posters who suggest powder types and rate of burning as explaining the differences in felt recoil. Stated briefly, I felt the 375 and the 470 to be giving a "push" against my shoulder. The others gave what I believe is called in technical terms, " a mule's kick".

Yessir, I personally haven't shot one of these African cartridges yet, but I've shot quite a bit of everything else: .405 Winchester, .338 Win Mag, 12 gauge shotguns. A lot of the recoil situation IMO has to do with what no equation can give you: Your buttstock, for instance. I shot a .30-06 carbine that hurt my shoulder after only about five rounds, while the .338 Win Mag that I shot, with its nearly 40 foot-pounds of recoil, gave me no problems at all. The .405 likewise.

I'm also beginning to think that it has to do with the shape of the butt itself. A slimmer butt (like with the .30-06 I shot) has less surface area, so the recoil energy is going to be concentrated when it's transferred to your shoulder. Consequence: Pain! While a "fatter" buttstock is going to dissipate its energy to your shoulder and be kinder to your budding arthritis.

I have a personal philosophy when it comes to recoil that works for me: Being a shooter, my only concern is getting the bullet to the target. If at any point I'm more concerned about the recoil from the gun than I am with hitting the target, then I've probably got too much gun for me. (Or, at least, I may just need a decent recoil pad.)

Most of todays comm. ammo for the 404 is 2350 FPS with a 24 inch barrel, that is about on par with most of todays .416 Rem. ammo...

I load a 404 up to 2400 and can load it to 2653 FPS in a 26 inch barrel so the 404 and 416 Rigby can be loaded to way beyond a 416 Rem..

If properly loaded the 404 and 416s are equal in every respect..

Today 2100 FPS has little to do with the 404 unless you have some mighty old ammo or some manufacturer that loads the older loads..

quote:

Most of todays comm. ammo for the 404 is 2350 FPS with a 24 inch barrel, that is about on par with most of todays .416 Rem. ammo...

I should really stop using some of my old books as a reference. After all, it looks like this newfangled Internet thing is starting to catch on!



From what I can tell, but there doesn't seem to be a great deal more recoil with the 2350 fps load of the .404 Jeffery and the 2150 fps load.
Why that's important to me is because I'm leaning towards a future .404 purchase and so I'm forming a bias. But I find around 40 ft-lbs of recoil to be tolerable and shootable, from my experience with the .338 Win Mag, and that's in the ballpark of what the standard .404 is supposed to have.

However, that's just my thinking so far. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

How about the shape of the shell would that have anything to do with pressure. I know it has to do with velocity.

someoldguy:

While, as you say, you never fired "African" cartridges, you sure have shot some darn near their equivalents! I have a personal recollection of shooting at ducks with a 12 ga. in north central Ontario in the local equivalent of "pass" shooting -where the shotgun was raised almost vertically - and feeling hammered into the ground by the 3 3/4 loads. Fact. I also remember watching a guy on a range being almost knocked down by his firing a 338 Win. Mag. (OK, he was not a very good shooter but the 338 sure scared me just watching -and recoil doesn't bother me as a rule.) So I think you are quite ready to handle any "African" cartridges. ((I almost forgot - the 405 is not exactly a nice soft kiss,either. My father owned one (405 Win. lever action) and I shot it as a 15-16 year old. Curved butt plate and all - and that brings me (in my longwinded way) to a point you made and with which I also agree - that the sheer fit of the stock matters a lot. In fact, it really matters! (I don't believe much in recoil pads and never have. A rifle that fits properly (with slight adjustments as all riflemen make)doesn't need a recoil pad - unless you like shooting the cartridges that give what I mentioned above - a "mule's kick".

quote:

My father owned one (405 Win. lever action) and I shot it as a 15-16 year old. Curved butt plate and all

Ouch! That would the one I wouldn't want to shoot! I would imagine that you might still have the indentations on your shoulder if you'd shot it much. The .405 I shot was an earlier model (1911 manufacture) but it had the shotgun buttstock. I really enjoyed shooting it, but ammo at that time was pretty pricey.

The 12 gauge I owned was a Winchester Model 370 single shot of about 1967 manufacture. (I was 16 when I got it as a Christmas present.) It wasn't fancy but it was as tough as an iron wedge. The gun was light and shooting magnums in that baby was a regular adventure in recoil!

someoldguy:

Actually I don't recall that the curved butt plate of the 1895 Win. in 405 bothered me at all. In fact, I know it didn't because I used my father's Savage 99 (30-30), also in curved butt plate to shoot my first deer with a rifle at age 18 (I had shot deer since I was 16 with a shotgun using slugs) The thing with a curved butt plate was to "tuck" the rifle in as it came to the shoulder -and we did this instinctively and as a reflex, hunching the shoulder (assuming practice, of course). In fact, looking back today, I think the stock fitted almost like something custom made. I shot several deer with that Savage 99, curved butt plate and all in strictly snap shooting. I'm sure the old shooters in the 1870s and 1880s who used curved butt plates must have liked them - or they wouldn't have lasted as long as they did. I fired about maybe 6-7 or 8-9 rounds from the 405. (I honestly don't recall today) It was from a box and my father probably had the ammo for 30 years or more at the time -and what the loads were I probably didn't even know then. It was my first introduction to a cartridge that was "more powerful" than the 30-30 (and I already was a worshipper of the 30-30 because my father carried it in Panama during construction of the Panama Canal. He was on survey parties in the jungle for the first 18 months or so of his nearly 7 years in Panama and needed a rifle. Fact) BTW, I read on another thread, the one showing those beautiful photos of an 1895 Win., schnabel fore end and all, your comment about a "push". That was probably my experience. I do recall that it "pushed" harder than the 375 H&H that I shot much later in life -but then so did the 470 NE "push" harder than the 375 that I shot later on,too - and so it goes. It was not an unpleasant rifle to shoot - and I have always had a lifelong belief that the most effective rifle (cartridge) is the one that doesn't cause you to flinch. The 1895 Win in 405 did not make me flinch. (I'm positive of my memory on that!)

The 404 recoils quit a bit more than a .375 IMO, but I can't tell much difference in any of them once you go beyond the .375, they all kick like hell except on the internet where a 600 N.E. is a mere maidens caress!

I've run 400gr to 2350fps in my 404j & recoil is quite abit more than running them @ 2200fps, so that is where I keep mine at.