I have three heavy recoiling rifles. I have researched mercury recoil suppressors and find the application interesting. But I would like input from those of you that might have had hands on experience. I absolutely do not want a muzzsle brake because of the resulting hearing damage. Your thoughts and observations regarding the mercury suppressors would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

I have used them and they definitely work. And they work a lot better than just sticking some lead in the butt. But you can hear the mercury slosh around.

what dan said... but you have to WORK at getting it to slosh

I really likes theese things too. Yea ,if really WORKED, one can hear the sloshing, and ain't it great? If a muzzlebrake was installed, one could not hear a damned thing.

Bent,

Huh? Please repeat, I can't hear you?



I don't own or have ever shot a rifle/shotgun equipped with a Mercury Recoil Reducer, so I cannot comment on the mercury slosh issue.

I'd like to remark that the ONE rifle (a .416 Remington Magnum) I handled with a Mercury Recoil Reducer in the butt stock was noticably out of balance and butt stock heavy.

While I'm sure this could be adjusted by countering with weight in the forearm or a heavy(ier) barrel; a consideration nonetheless.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerry:
I'd like to remark that the ONE rifle (a .416 Remington Magnum) I handled with a Mercury Recoil Reducer in the butt stock was noticably out of balance and butt stock heavy.

While I'm sure this could be adjusted by countering with weight in the forearm or a heavy(ier) barrel; a consideration nonetheless.

Gerry,
good point, ANY weight making one off balance is bad, and if the owner/gunsmith didn't counter balance with an oz or 2 in the forarm, you can't hardly blaime the weight in the butt for the mind of that a$$ <LOL>

jeffe

Doesn't someone make a foer end mercury reducer?

Bulldog563,

quote:

Originally posted by bulldog563:
Doesn't someone make a foer end mercury reducer?

Take a look a this link Grayco makes an entire line of recoil reducers
Grayco recoil reducers

On the rifles were i have installed mercury recoil reducers, I have always installed one in the butt ( ...of the rifle-stock, mind you....)and one in the fore-end, the latter much smaller in diameter and a bit longer.
Looking at the Graco page foxfire gave up above, that would be the #14 in the butt and the #M12 in the fore-end. This worke out superb, and the balance is very good too.

I have two DeadMule inertia-type recoil reducers in my .470 Capstick. No sloshing.

George

quote:

Originally posted by SD Shooter:
I have three heavy recoiling rifles. I have researched mercury recoil suppressors and find the application interesting. But I would like input from those of you that might have had hands on experience. I absolutely do not want a muzzsle brake because of the resulting hearing damage. Your thoughts and observations regarding the mercury suppressors would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

I have one in the butt of My Ruger 458 Lott RSM and it makes quite a bit of difference in felt recoil. It does slosh but it sounds about like a full motor oil can but only if you really shake it. I feel it improved the balance of the Lott as the balance is now about mid magazine instead of just in front of the action.

I'm planning on having one put in My 500NE Searcy.

SD,

The only scopes that I have seen break-down were on big bore, (.416 Rigby & .458 Lott) rifles with mercury recoil reducers. Leupold / Swarovski / Kahles. These same meke scopes worked fine on the rifles that did not have the mercury reducers. I understand that it's the opposide force that the scopes are not made for.

If you are not planning on using a scope, by all means. I feel from my experience that they are helpful, but not a magic solution.

From my experience and what I personally know from others, I would not use them on a scoped rifle. Others will have used them without any problems. I don't trust it with a scope.

Good luck with your decision.

Sam

Now that is interesting...

I always assumed that the recoil reducers were much ado about nothing, serving no better than an equal amount of fixed weight. Howsomever, if they are hard on scopes then there is obviously some curious effect on the recoil pulse.

The bottom line is that neither a fixed weight or a dynamic weight is going change the amount of recoil energy. It will of course change the speed, which is a good thing, and perhaps the dynamic weights will modify the timing of the pulse some in addition to reducing the speed.

If you guys are seeing real reduction in felt recoil beyond the effects of a fixed weight, I reckon I need to try one. Thanks!

Glenn

I have a 16 oz. mercury suppressor in the butt stock of my .416 Rigby chambered Ruger # 1 Tropical. It's recoil now is maybe a little more than my M 700 chambered 7 Mag. Here is a link to the C & H site.

http://www.mercuryrecoil.com/index.htm#top

The .600 Overkills I built have Three reducers in the butt and one plus some lead in the forearm( in order to balance just under the front action ring). That plus a good muzzel brake and proper stock design is how you can handle 160ft-lbs or recoil with ease. My son and I did a test a few years ago where we compared in the same gun Mercury recoil reducers versus equal weight lead weights. The Mercury recoil reducer won. Not by much but the recoil was definately noticeably milder. I also suspect they work by reducing the recoil pulse amplitude( probably a weight effect) and duration. -Rob

And even if they don't work better than lead weight, they are a remarkably compact and convenient way to add weight to a rifle or shotgun.
I have C&H mercury recoil reducers in several rifles and shotgun.

I have used them in everything from 338 WM up including my muzzleloaders and 3.5" shotguns and no problems. Todate, there have been no scope issues. THEY WORK!!