Anyone know how much lighter recoil wise a 6.5 creedmoor is relative to a 308?

I am getting a 6.5 creedmoor in a blaser k95 single shot.

Thanks,

Mike

A heavy 6.5 CM load is a 140

A light .308 is 150

I'm betting there is little "felt" difference in these two loads in a rifle with the same specs

I have both; there is a very noticeable difference in the recoils; more difference than the numbers show. 6.5 feels like about 3/4 of a 308.
140 at 2700 vs, 150 at 2800
and the 6.5 uses less powder; all adds up to much less recoil. Powder does add to recoil.

There is a calculator to determine the actual ft/lbs of recoil given rifle weight and load.

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:
There is a calculator to determine the actual ft/lbs of recoil given rifle weight and load.

Biebs - that is physics. You think if I could do physics I would have gone to law school

Mike

Save you guys from over working your big brains on a physics problem, I found this handy calculator that you need only punch in the numbers.....
When I ran the numbers the numbers said 12 pounds for the 6.5 and 14 for the .308. Practically same.


http://www.handloads.com/calc/recoil.asp

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snellstrom:
Save you guys from over working your big brains on a physics problem, I found this handy calculator that you need only punch in the numbers.....
When I ran the numbers the numbers said 12 pounds for the 6.5 and 14 for the .308. Practically same.


Seems like the measurement should be in foot pounds ( energy ) rather than pounds ( force )
roger roger

When I run the numbers, for the loads I use in both calibers in an 8 pound rifle, , I get 17 ft pounds of recoil energy for the 308 and 13 for the 6.5.
That is 76 percent of the 308. And the recoil velocity of the 308 is 15 percent more; so the are not practically the same at all, and that is borne out in my shooting them.
Yes the measurement is in foot pounds. Yes, it is physics.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
When I run the numbers, for the loads I use in both calibers in an 8 pound rifle, , I get 17 ft pounds of recoil energy for the 308 and 13 for the 6.5.
That is 76 percent of the 308. And the recoil velocity of the 308 is 15 percent more; so the are not practically the same at all, and that is borne out in my shooting them.
Yes the measurement is in foot pounds. Yes, it is physics.

How would it look for a 5 pound 5 once rifle? Maybe 6.5 with a swaro z3.

Thanks

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
When I run the numbers, for the loads I use in both calibers in an 8 pound rifle, , I get 17 ft pounds of recoil energy for the 308 and 13 for the 6.5.
That is 76 percent of the 308. And the recoil velocity of the 308 is 15 percent more; so the are not practically the same at all, and that is borne out in my shooting them.
Yes the measurement is in foot pounds. Yes, it is physics.

Sounds ridiculous. You may use 3-4 grains less powder in a Creedmoor. The difference between 140 @ 2700 and 150 @ 2800 is almost nothing.

Felt recoil = Recoil impulse = Force applied to the shoulder over time. ( Mathematically simply change in momentum )

Calculated energy tells us little of the force felt. Its the same when the bullet strikes the target.... the energy calculated is simply a indicator of potential to do damage. What matters is the actual force applied by the bullet over time and not the calculated energy!


Calculated this entity ( recoil impulse) is charge dependent and small increments ie mere grains actually represent a substantial percentage of the overall charge mass.

Examples of recoil impulse mitigation is adding a soft rubber pad to the stock in stead of a metal butt plate. For the same load the rifle will have a smaller recoil impulse with the rubber butt pad than the metal butt plate because of alteration of the time factor.

Ridiculous sounding, perhaps, until you input the actual numbers into the calculator.
But it is true; ten grains of bullet; 100 fps, and a few (8 in my loads) grains of powder, in the same rifle, do, indeed, make a 24 percent difference in recoil energy.
It is math; physics. I didn't invent math, but I do have both identical rifles; come over and we will take them to the range and you can see for yourself.
The 6.5 creed moor has a noticeable recoil reduction to it. Do not discount recoil velocity either; often ignored, it is a critical player in felt recoil.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Ridiculous sounding, perhaps, until you input the actual numbers into the calculator.
But it is true; ten grains of bullet; 100 fps, and a few (8 in my loads) grains of powder, in the same rifle, do, indeed, make a 24 percent difference in recoil energy.
It is math; physics. I didn't invent math, but I do have both identical rifles; come over and we will take them to the range and you can see for yourself.
The 6.5 creed moor has a noticeable recoil reduction to it. Do not discount recoil velocity either; often ignored, it is a critical player in felt recoil.

No need. I have a 6.5X55 & a 7-08 so I know what a 140 grain bullet at 2700-2800 fps feels like. It doesn't feel any different than my 308 with 150s. I can't tell the difference. If I start comparing 120s in the 6.5 to 165s in the 308, I can certainly tell a difference.

Yes dpcd you can easily manipulate the numbers to rig the results in your favor.
I can also run the powder to make them equal and can run them the way you do, all depends on the point you are trying to prove.

If Alf tells me it's 25% less recall, I will believe it.

I think 6.5 might be the perfect light single shot caliber.

Lower recoil
Great range
Good bullets
Plenty of ammo

I really like the 308 - have the most guns in that caliber. But for light single shot I think 6.5 will be a lot of fun.

Now to load up on ammo.

Thanks for all the info.

Mike

Two things going on.

The smaller the expected difference, the larger the sample size needed to see it. This is why shotgunners are not joking when they argue this powder or that - all generating 1200 fps for 1.125 oz - makes a difference. They may be shooting 400 rounds each day in practice. I can't tell the difference between .308 and '06 firing single 3 shot groups. If I made a day of it, I'd be able to tell which is which.

Second, perceived recoil is not the same as recoil energy. Some are more bothered by velocity/accel than others. This is not even mentioning differing action types, buttplate configurations/materials........eieio.

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
Anyone know how much lighter recoil wise a 6.5 creedmoor is relative to a 308?

I am getting a 6.5 creedmoor in a blaser k95 single shot.

Thanks,

Mike

Bloody hell Mike!

Yiu must be a sissy bothering to ask about the recoil of these two pipsqueeks!

Next time you are on DUBAI let me know, you can try a 10 shot group with our 577 T Rex!

If that does not rattle your brains, then you can try our 700 bolt action with a 1500 grain bullets!

You can tell us all which one has more felt recoil!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
Anyone know how much lighter recoil wise a 6.5 creedmoor is relative to a 308?

I am getting a 6.5 creedmoor in a blaser k95 single shot.

Thanks,

Mike

Bloody hell Mike!

Yiu must be a sissy bothering to ask about the recoil of these two pipsqueeks!

Next time you are on DUBAI let me know, you can try a 10 shot group with our 577 T Rex!

If that does not rattle your brains, then you can try our 700 bolt action with a 1500 grain bullets!

You can tell us all which one has more felt recoil!

I made an appointment with my dentist already in anticipation of a few lose teeth in my left jaw from the recoil.


I will come play with the cheetah - leave the big bores to braver men. I only shoot blasers anyway

Mike

wow that needs to be 6.5 creedmoor vs 243 win. or 7mm-08 rem. a tad heaver than a .243 or a tad lighter than a 7-08

Mr Snell; to suggest that I manipulated the numbers to come up with any particular results is an insult.
No need for that here.
And it shows you didn't read my post.
Those are MY loads; not something you made up.
I was only showing numbers, mathmatically derived from data. You can't change physics no matter how much you might want to.
As stated, perceived recoil is another thing.
I can tell the difference, with my loads and my identical rifles.
If you can't, fine.

Physics 101:
Momentum - impulse theorem !

It applies to internal and terminal ballistics

The critical part is the recoil impulse or force applied over time on the gun and it's parts
Critical to gun and carriage design.

Recoil mitigation a important part in practical design through the ages !

in IPSC shooting the "power factor" that rules in competition is nothing other than recoil impulse measured in Newton seconds

ALF, you're making my head hurt :-)

Alf< Are you saying that the felt recoil is not in ft.# of energy? roger

No i'm not !

Off course its energy but not all of the energy, only that part that is deemed "mechanical energy" and that part of the mechanical energy that pushes against your shoulder ie force applied over time !

Recoil energy gets "lost in the system" and that incidentally is why we use deform-able pads
We want the energy to "get lost" !

it is exactly the same rule that applies when the powder ignites forms a gas and sends our bullet down the barrel !

in fact the area under Pressure time curve is a representation of impulse ie force applied over time.

When the bullet impacts we have exactly the same scenario..... the bullet has a certain kinetic energy but that energy converts to heat energy , acoustic energy and then part that does damage mechanical energy...... the bullet applies a net force in direction of motion on the target material for a given period of time

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
No i'm not !

Off course its energy but not all of the energy, only that part that is deemed "mechanical energy" and that part of the mechanical energy that pushes against your shoulder ie force applied over time !

Recoil energy gets "lost in the system" and that incidentally is why we use deform-able pads
We want the energy to "get lost" !

it is exactly the same rule that applies when the powder ignites forms a gas and sends our bullet down the barrel !

in fact the area under Pressure time curve is a representation of impulse ie force applied over time.

When the bullet impacts we have exactly the same scenario..... the bullet has a certain kinetic energy but that energy converts to heat energy , acoustic energy and then part that does damage mechanical energy...... the bullet applies a net force in direction of motion on the target material for a given period of time

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
No i'm not !

Off course its energy but not all of the energy, only that part that is deemed "mechanical energy" and that part of the mechanical energy that pushes against your shoulder ie force applied over time !

Recoil energy gets "lost in the system" and that incidentally is why we use deform-able pads
We want the energy to "get lost" !

it is exactly the same rule that applies when the powder ignites forms a gas and sends our bullet down the barrel !

in fact the area under Pressure time curve is a representation of impulse ie force applied over time.

When the bullet impacts we have exactly the same scenario..... the bullet has a certain kinetic energy but that energy converts to heat energy , acoustic energy and then part that does damage mechanical energy.. .... the bullet applies a net force in direction of motion on the target material for a given period of time

That sounds like electricity: for example electricity is lost as heat, and that's why a current flow through a lightbulb or resistor makes each hot.

Just kidding with you

For me the difference between a .260 Remington (which is ballistically the same as a 6.5 just not as good marketing) is that I can see the strike of the bullet on game under recoil with say 120 grain loads while with a .308 the recoil pulls the scope off target enough that I have to wait for the rifle to recover and regain my sight picture before I see what happened. The 120-130 grain 6.5 bullet is perfect for the caliber and deer size game out to 400 yards. If you are going to shoot farther than that you bought the wrong gun from the get go.

nil .. there's nil difference in recoil between these two rounds --

i can make as much of a change in recoil in a 458 by changing powder charge than these have total ...

The 6.5 is perfect, that mean 308 unravels my "man" bun

quote:

Originally posted by 450ak:
The 6.5 is perfect, that mean 308 unravels my "man" bun

Ok, that was funny!

308 is just like the creedmoor but for men.

quote:

The 6.5 is perfect, that mean 308 unravels my "man" bun

6.5 covers a lot of rounds..

i'll take my 7mm-08 over my .308 win. or my .260 rem. but, I will take all 3 over the 6.5 creedmoor.. just saying

I'm picking up my 6.5CM next weekend and after the discussions on this thread about recoil, I'm anxious to go shoot it.

As a young lad I would reload all my rifle calibers hot and hotter. My goal was to flatten trajectories and hit more stuff when shooting longer distance by mitigating the hold over. Not a sound theory but one that I pursued. I remember loading .223 rounds to 3900fps, 270 rounds to 3200fps, 30-06 rounds to 3000fps, 300Win Mag loads to 3100fps and 45-70 loads to 2000fps. I was using various bullet weights and powders to achieve that goal of trajectory management.

As I am now older and hopefully wiser I've thought about the recoil that I was generating at the time and am impressed that it didn't seem to bother me that much. I'm 6'5" and 230lbs but still some of those rounds did generate some ft lbs of recoil. I know, I know your rifle and loads generated much much more and OK good for you. Today the thought of 20 rounds of my 45-70 pushing a 405g bullet at 1975fps is reason for a pause and another think.

I remember shooting, but not owning, a .308 with 180g factory loads a long time ago on a elk hunting trip in Central Idaho and thinking that caliber is much lighter in recoil than my 300 Win Mag.

Now the 6.5CM recoil is going to be a delight in comparison to the miss spent days of my youth. Also with all the technology of this long range hunting I should be able to hit stuff at longer ranges.

Thanks for triggering those memories.

I have a 6.5 CM in a Ruger Predator

It is fitted with a custom brake that holds the muzzel down and eats up nearly all the felt recoil.

Stikes on steel are visable through the scope.....it is a joy to shoot

If your hunting deer size game, it won't make any difference so go with a 6.5 I suppose for comfort, if you intend to hunt larger than deer, go with the .308..I can't tell any difference in the 6.5s than the 308s, but you can always load the .308 down but you can't load the 6.5 up much at all..

For a hunting rifle Id opt for the .308 every time.