I have read that the recoil on a 260 is mild. Had one built and I think that others idea of recoil is somewhat different than mine. Compared the 260 to my old standby 25-06 yesterday and the 120's kicked noticably more than the 100's. I am just getting old?

Can be a huge difference in felt recoil and calculated recoil. Using basic loads the 100gr 25-06 calculates as 15 Ftlbs the 260 as 12 with the same weight rifle. Lighter rifle different shape stock all will impact recoil

If the rifles aren't identical then you really can't make a good comparison. I feel the 260/120gr recoils just a bit more than a 243/100gr, definetly less than the 25-06 from identical rifles, niether of which offers any real recoil IMO. Then again, my most often shot rifle is a .338-06, so maybe you are just getting old.

I agree. I put the recoil of my .260 in the same bracket as a 22-250 and such. That is to say, I didn't know they recoiled.

Weighed the rifles, they are within a pound of each other. The 260 the lighter. Same stock, McMillian, Remington action on the 25-06 and a Montana on the 260. Perhaps it is just me but it could be that I am left handed. Would that make it recoil more? I may try a dead mule in the stock.

A 2# light stock in the 260 adds 2# of recoil. Per this calculation:
http://sst.benchrest.com/recoil.html

So I doubt you could tell the difference between 14&15. Stock shape has a large impact on felt recoil.

The 3rd Law of Physics:
"Whenever one body exerts a force on another, the second body always exerts on the first a force which is equal in measure but opposite in direction." In other words, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The rifle will have a recoil momentum equal to the bullet and powder gas momentum exiting the muzzle. Momentum equals Mass (M) times Velocity (V).

Example:

Cartridge: 9.3x62
Bullet Weight: 286 grains
Muzzle Velocity: 2350 fps
Average Powder Weight: 55 grains
7000 grains = 1 pound
Powder Gas Velocity = 5200 fps

MV = MV, therefore;

Bullet Weight/7000 x Bullet Velocity + Powder Charge/7000 x Powder Gas Velocity = Rifle Weight x Rifle Recoil Velocity, therefore;

Assume an initial rifle weight of 9 pounds to determine Rifle Recoil Velocity in order to calculate Kinetic Energy, therefore;

[286/7000 x 2350] + [55/7000 x 5200] = 9 x Rifle Recoil Velocity, therefore;

[96.01 + 40.86] /9 = Rifle Recoil Velocity = Free Recoil Velocity, therefore;

Rifle Recoil Velocity = 15.21 fps for a 9.3x62 weighing 9 pounds. For comparison purposes, the Rifle Recoil Velocity of .30-06 weighing 8.5 pounds firing a 180 grain bullet is 12.71 fps.

Now we can calculate Kinetic Energy (KE) expressed in ft. lbs:

KE = Mass times Velocity squared / Gravitational Constant, therefore;

KE = [9 x 15.21 x 15.21] / 64.32, therefore;

KE = 32.37 ft. lbs. = Free Recoil Energy for 9.3x62 weighing 9 pounds.

Run a sensitivity analysis to dial in rifle weight and balance taking into account distribution of recoil technology.

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:
A 2# light stock in the 260 adds 2# of recoil. So I doubt you could tell the difference between 14&15. Stock shape has a large impact on felt recoil.

I'll bet that taking 1# off that stock is all the diff. not just 2# of recoil. The recoil pad mat'l. also makes a huge diff. in "felt" recoil.

quote:

I'll bet that taking 1# off that stock is all the diff. not just 2# of recoil.

THat is why I don't like shooting light rifles. My hunting rifle weighs 8.5 and the 7mm08 has virtually no recoil to me in this weight.

I like this site as info is all good. I was surprised at the recoil from what I have read here. I didn't understand as the stocks are exactly the same in dim and weight. I was sure that weight would make a difference but not as much as I felt. Hell I guess that I just need to toughen up. Thanks for all the input.

I have a 260 Rem Encore Pistol. I love it.

Recoil, what recoil?

Best wishes, Bill

I once owned a Revelation Model 250DH in 30/06.
That is a economy grade Model 110 Savage made for Western Auto or some similar company.

With the original stock it was very mild to shoot.
I eventually ran into a stock for the Savage 110 Premier. My rifle was like the photo except the stock was exceptionally nice French walnut and was right handed. It also was very uncomfortable to shoot. I owned an FN Musketeer in .308 Norma at the same time and I preferred shooting the FN.

ireload2:

Why was the rifle uncomfortable to shoot?

According to the recoil calculator in my Lee load program the 100 gr 243 factory gives 10.2 f/p recoil energy vs 12.9 f/p for the 260 in 120 gr form from Remington in a 7# rifle. I would think it would take a pretty delicate shoulder to notice the difference between them, especially with the all stock and recoil pad differences possible.
Then again I find it difficult to tell any difference between a 270/150gr, 30-06/150gr, 708/150gr from a bench so what do I know..

I like Buliwyf's dissertation, and I'd like to add another two or three cents worth. Felt recoil has a lot to do with the cartridge, overall weight of the rifle, and the stock design. I've just lived thru this with arthritis of the neck (5th and 6th vertibrae) and a family of 9.3x62mm rifles. Three years ago I sold off all but one of my 9.3x62mms because I could not stand the pain in my neck from shooting the rifles, a Steyr Luxus and two Steyr-Mannlichers. I kept an ugly old VZ-24 camp rifle in 9.3x62 for nostalgia only. Anyway, after three years with the chiropractor I succumbed to the harassment of my PH and tried that old camp gun again. Oh My God, I could handle recoil again! Truthfully, the cure has to be my chiropractor, AND the fact that the stock on that camp gun has a huge amount of cast off. The 9.3 now feels like more of a shove. I'm no specialist on figures and precise recoil calculations, but I know impact, and having a stock with significant cast off does make a difference. By way of comparison, check your stock, or better yet, check a Steyr stock, which has no cast off. (Oh, one more caveat, Mannlicher-Schoenauers did have cast off stocks)

LLS