The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Big Bores Mercury Recoil Reducers :) One More Time!!Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
one of us |
After years of believing the advertising, I got onto my butt (I don't work well standing up) and decided to check the math. So we have a 10 pound rifle that really knocks the snot loose. After getting out of the hospital we want to tame the vicious beast with some extra weight. We want to go to 13 pounds. But no! Some smarmy smart-aleck tells us we should put in three (3) one pound Hg recoil reducers, it'll knock 30% off the recoil. We buy the line and put them in. Well, how much do they really knock off? You check my ciphering and see where I made a mistake.  Before you point out it is a 13 pound rifle, it is not. It is an 11.5 pound rifle having a collision with 1.5 pounds of liquid mercury. We get the other 1.5 pounds from the containers that hold the Hg. Since they are integral with the rifle, their masses are added in. I used the formula for an inelastic collision to check the velocity of the combined masses, rifle and Hg. Comparing the energies of adding dead weight versus using a collision does not appear to gain any real result. I hypothesize the "perceived" felt reduction in recoil is the fast recoil of the 11.5 pound rifle abruptly slowing by about 3fps. So I should say at this time that Ray Atkinson, Jack Belk, Chic Worthing, Bill (they gurgle) Leeper et.al were in fact correct; it is easier and far cheaper to just drop in a slug of lead, much more effective too. [ 06-19-2003, 15:29: Message edited by: Roger Rothschild ] | ||
|
| One of Us |
Roger, you are so much smarter than me it's stupid mate ![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif){kind=icon} So for an idiot like me who has three mercury reducers in my .585 Nyati would I have been bettr off just adding the equivalent weight in lead shot ?? | |||
|
| one of us |
PC, No way! Remember the cool experiment They make you do in physics 101, where you run one toy car into another on a track? I remembered that and looked for the formulas on Google.com, came right up. The it was entering them into the Excel spreadsheet and voila! ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif){kind=icon} Uh...don't feel bad about the reducers you have, just tell someone you didn't like the gurgle they made and you replaced them with slugs of lead. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Rodger when I start back at work next week and the money starts coming in again ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif){kind=icon} I will send you some pics mate. | |||
|
One of Us |
Hey Roger, I could never tell the difference in recoil when using those mercury reducers. On the other hand, I have a 458 Lott and a 400 Tembo with the Dead Mule reducers (1 each) in the buttstock and I can feel the difference. They just seem to slow the rifles down in the last part of the kick. The recoil still gets my attention, but shooting is more pleasant. The Lott started life as a 458 Win and feels like it kicks a bit less with the Dead Mule than the 458 Win did without it. Just my observation--hope this isn't the "power of suggestion" at work! ![[Eek!]](images/icons/shocked.gif){kind=icon} Good Hunting, | |||
|
| One of Us |
Roger, Whatever your calculation says, it is my experience that mercury recoil reducers slow the recoil and therefore take some of the bite out of it. I don't know where your 30% figure came from, because I would say it is more like a 5-10% felt reduction. More importantly, the recoil is slower and not as sharp with the mercury installed, which is why I like it. To each his own. Those who don't believe the mercury story generally don't have it in their guns, and those who like mercury have it. | |||
|
| one of us |
500, Exactly. 5-10% x 3 = ~30%. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Roger, I do not think the effect is cumulative, so multiplying 5-10% by 3 would be misleading. There is a noticeable decrease in felt recoil, but that is difficult to quantify, so I would estimate it at 5-10%. That's enough, however, to take some of the bit out, which really helps me. I don't mind a lot of recoil, as long as it is not too sharp. | |||
|
one of us |
Wheither it is psycological or not, my personal experience follows that of 500grains. I originally put one in the stock of my 458 Lott. One of the best things that it accomplished was it improved the gun's balance dramatically. I have several of the Mercury Recoil reducers in my shop so I decided to really tame down my son's Model 70 Compact Classic in a 7-08. He is 11 years old and I didn't want him to be the least bit recoil shy. The gun with the scope, sling, and no ammo weighs exactly 9 1/2 lbs. Needless to say it is quite tame. I have had several adult (and very experienced) shooters shoulder his rifle and asked their impression. They all said that it was one of the best balanced rifles they have ever shouldered. Then I told them what I did and to a man they couldn't believe that it would feel so good. They all thought that it would be butt heavy. Several tried to buy it off of me, but it is my son's gun. I also have two identical Winchester Supergrade 30-06's. For another experiment, I put a mercury recoil reducer in the stock. I have handed each one to most of these shooters and everyone of them liked the one with the reducer over the stock rifle. These are the 13 oz reducers. Just using lead may end up with the same results, but the steel tube mercury recoil reducer is much easier to install and remove. | |||
|
One of Us |
quote:Roger, I am no physicist, and without a "key" I did have a hard time following the symbols used in your equations, but it seems to me that the premise may be off. Shouldn't the problem be tackled this way?-- First, since the rifle (or the system, which includes the mercury reducers) weighs 13 pounds--figure the total recoil velocity and energy of that system based on a 13 pound rifle, not an 11.5 rifle colliding with 1.5 lbs. of mercury that is somehow "outside" the system. Then, figure the amount of the total system's velocity and energy that is used (or "absorbed," so to speak) in the process of accelerating the mercury (i.e., overcoming its inertia or getting it flowing) for the length of the tube in the opposite direction of the recoil force. This latter amount of "absorbed" velocity/energy would then be factored in (somehow--and this is where my uncertainty lies) to calculate the reduction of both the total recoil velocity and energy of the system. This reduction would constitute the advantage that mercury flowing through a tube within the system provides over merely adding static weight to the system. Where have I gone wrong, bearing in mind that I very well may have? | |||
|
| one of us |
My idea may be simple...but simple is as simple does.... Why not do a "field" test. Get 3 or 4 shooters. Shoot the rifle with the mercury recoil reducers in the stock.... then remove them and replace them with the exact same weight in lead and shoot the rifle again. "See" which way the rifle kicks less. | |||
|
| One of Us |
quote:Roger and Longbob If you remove the recoil reducers and fill the holes with, say cork, would the gun swing faster and shoot farther? ![[Confused]](images/icons/confused.gif){kind=icon} | |||
|
| one of us |
Micky, Yes it will, but I only do that with my exhibition shots. | |||
|
One of Us |
Mickey1...nice one... you must be of the Mantle clan... Mike Freedom is not Free | |||
|
one of us |
I have always questioned the utility of Mercury recoil reducers myself. A month ago I did the following blinded experiment! My latest 470 Mbogo has three mercury recoil reducers in the butt which are readily removable. I have found that as someone else mentioned they do allow you to nicely balance a rifle just over the front action ring! The pad simply screws on. I had my son fire it three times with some very stiff loads without telling him anything, then I took the reducers out and put an equal weight of lead shot in the holes( and some paper to hold it in place), then replaced the pad. I had him shoot it three more times. When my son was unblinded, The felt recoil WAS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER with the Mercury tubes in place. The recoil pulse also felt dramatically slower and more controlable to him. I noticed that the accuracy of his shots with the Mercury tubes was also much better than with the lead weights in place. He noticed this too! I then repeated this myself, and found that the difference in felt recoil was indeed quite noticable. These Mercury recoil reducers do indeed work as advertized!I think this calculation is interesting but basically a little too simplistic.-Rob | |||
|
| one of us |
Robgunbuilder Simple is as simple does. Has amybody tried placing a mercury recoil reducer in the forearm to see if it lessens muzzle rise? | |||
|
| One of Us |
500 grains has one in the forearm of his .585 Nyati. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:That is an interesting question, but I think it would only work if the tube was placed vertically which is impractical. | |||
|
| One of Us |
quote:Just place once of the smaller mercury tubes ahead of the 2nd recoil lug, steel bedded into the stock. I don't know if it reduces muzzle rise or not. | |||
|
| one of us |
500grains, I would think that any equivalent weight ahead of the recoil lug would affect muzzle rise proportionately. If the mercury truly does have an ancillary benefit over lead, then the tube would have to be installed parallel to the motion that you are trying to counteract. Perpendicular to the barrel to slowdown muzzle rise. Just install a forward pistol grip on your DGR and put the mercury tube in the grip. Then post pictures. | |||
|
| one of us |
I thought since the inital recoil movement is mainly back at first [the rotation of the body causing the upward motion] the effect of the mercury reducer in the forestock might have some helpful effect more than just the weight of the device. If you only hold your rifle by the pistol grip and place your support hand under your firing hand and fire will you not experience more muzzle rise than if your support hand is far foward on the forestock? | |||
|
| One of Us |
quote:It was not my suggestion to install one vertically. Mine are installed horizontally. | |||
|
| one of us |
500grains, I never said that you suggested that they be put vertically. I made the suggestion, twice! And you quoted me each time. There shouldn't be any confusion. | |||
|
| one of us |
I love a well balanced gun that points like an English 410 2.5" shotgun and the addition of a gallon or so of liquid of anykind in the butt of a gunstock is counter productive to good handling qualities...My head is made up... | |||
|
| one of us |
Ray I am with you on this one. I was just trying to help these [good ] guys who feel the need to shoot a "field" piece without the wheeled carriage. When you're shooting a shoulder mounted "Dora" you need all the help you can get. | |||
|
| one of us |
Well N.E. then they ought to put all the recoil reducing equipment on the other end where it really works, move that gas the other way!! The brake is not for me either until I reach my recoil limit...Guess thats why I shot the 40 calibers, I don't need help with them... I really liked the brake on my 458 Lott and 505's. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Big Bores Mercury Recoil Reducers :) One More Time!!
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia