I need some suggestions for recoil reducers. Don't want a muzzle break. Thanks

How about Magna-Port?

Mercury tube or tungsten bead recoil arrestor correctly fitted in the stock works a treat.

what caliber?
the first and best method to reduce felt recoil is shooting more.. seriously

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
what caliber?
the first and best method to reduce felt recoil is shooting more.. seriously

Plus excellent stock fit; wouldn't you say Jeffe?

I had Harlan put two mercury recoil reducers in my CZ 500 Jeff. It made the balance perfect as well (at least for me). I wouldn't want to shoot it without them, but then again I'm a recoil wuss ...

Lead Sled for sighting in and load development...you won't notice the recoil when there's an animal in your scope.

You would not be able to tell the difference between mercury recoil reducers and just filling the holes in the stock with lead shot and epoxy. It's also easier to adjust the guns balance with lead shot and epoxy holes in the forearm and butt.-Rob

Its a 416, but its light. I can handle the recoil even off the bench, but the muzzle jump is bad. Shot ten shots for sight in, but one the forend came out of my hand.

Magna port for the muzzle jump and maybe 10% less recoil as a bonus. I have been successful with that on two of my light-meduim weight bolt guns and highly recommend it for muzzle jump.

I'll have to disagree with Rob when he says a mercury tube recoil arrestor is no more effecient than a piece or pieces of lead.

Simple physics tells us that the mercury tube is considerably more effecient than just adding weight and this has been discussed several times before. One example here.

I am not a fan of sticking anything in my butt stock or forend, they just don't balance to suit me..however the .416s recoil bothers me not at all even in light weight rifles..but the 458 Lott and up does and I want one of those damn loud muzzle breaks.

www.mpcsports.com has C and H mercury recoil reducers. they need to be put in at a 30 degree angle to keep the mercury near the butt.

Mercury reducers or lead make a rifle butt heavy and that makes the gun flip up high on snap shots, or slow on snap shooting. These are used on DG rifles where pointability is very important IMO..adding more in the forend is one approach but not my idea of balancing a rifle. A 26 inch barrel helps about as much as anything when it comes to balance. A rifle should be a tad heavy up front for me at least..

If one needs a to be adding that stuff to his gun, I suggest he is shooting too much gun and doesn't want to admit it or deal with learning how to shoot it. He would be better off shooting the mild little 9.3x62 that kicks like a 30-06 and kills every bit as good as a .375.

SSR

My Merkel 470 double came from factory with a weight in the buttstock.Shot it both with and without (it was held in the throughbolt hole by a plate and a wood screw and the plastic buttplate) when I installed a Pachmyer Decellerator (which is hollow construction) after about 15 rounds the weight was trying to push thru the pad. Just removed it from then on. Have used both mercury tubes and MagNaPort. Had a Ruger RSM that was MagNaPorted and it seemed to do a good job. I have a CZ550 I compared it against. Both were 416Rigby. Also had a mercury tube in a Valmet but it actually DID make it too muzzle light for me. I might add some weight in the forearm for balance as I greatly dislike long barrels. My 416Rigby CZ550 has a 21" barrel and my Brno 602 375H&H has a 21" barrel. They are much handier in and out of truck in field in Africa and work well in thick brush. I absolutely never put a rifle in a truck rack while in Africa. If it was not in the hardcase I carried it period.

Most safari companies carry rifles in the truck rack in the bed of the pickup in front of the hunters and guide..Always in a soft case and that works real well for us.

I, personally dont' use a soft case, but most of my old hunting guns are so beat up it makes little difference, all the nice ones get sold.

I had my favorite .338 cut to 21" for convenience, had it magna-ported and a Pachmyer decelerater pad put on. I shoot a 250 gr. Nosler at 2650 and recoil appears to me to be like a .270. The muzzle blast is not excessive and it doesn't blow up a lot of dust like a muzzle brake does. I'm very pleased with the whole set-up.

I actually don't own a soft case of any quality and have never used one here in the states. I carry my guns to the field in a hard case and after that in my hands. Have been doing it for well over 50 years so probably won't change now. I have put many miles in back of a safari vehicle with my rifle in my hands. Absolutely none of my guns look beat up because they aren't and that goes for the expensive ones and the cheap ones. I treat ALL guns the same,as if they all were totally engraved and inlaid with gold and only a couple are. I don't abuse my tools either except I must admit I do mess up screwdriver blades by twisting too hard. It's just habit.

What did the old time hunters use..
Kidd

I think you've gotten several very good answers.

1. Agree wholeheartedly with Jeffe...the real deal is "more shooting". Just start with lighter recoiling rifles (at the top of your current "true comfort" level) and work your way up.

2. Ugly or not, get the best recoil pad you can find.

3. Make sure your stock and gun truly feels comfortable when you bring it up to shoot. If it doesn't, get it modified until it does. Holding the gun firmly, but without strain is very important to "accepting" recoil.

If none of those things work for you, especially if all used together, then you may well need to accept either a lighter recoiling cartridge/gun, or you may just have to suck it up occasionally for some pain. Nothing is for free, so sometimes a guy has to compromise in his own enlightened self-interest.

Shakari- would you please cite the simple physics which Proves that a mercury recoil reducer in a rifle is superior to lead shot. Don't be afraid to use advanced calculus equations as I can probably just barely muddle my way through them.-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by Robgunbuilder:
Shakari- would you please cite the simple physics which Proves that a mercury recoil reducer in a rifle is superior to lead shot. Don't be afraid to use advanced calculus equations as I can probably just barely muddle my way through them.-Rob

Rob,

It's all in the link I posted but Here it is again.

Simple schoolroom physics of Newton's laws of motion tell us that for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.

The easiest examples of this might be found when you take a part filled bottle, lay it on it's side and then move it suddenly backwards or forwards and observe the contents. Alternatively, take a board or other flat(moveable) flas surface, place a ball on it and then suddenly move the board backwards and forwards and observe what happens to the ball.

Newton wasn't wrong.

Shakari- I think I actually have a good understanding of the law of conservation of Momentum. The Physics you describe are actually quite complicated and If I were in a mood for a pissing contest, I'd do a little educating. But here is a clue. Calculate the percentage of velocity reduction due to Inertial resistance of the amount of Mercury your using on momentum versus the effect on the total Momentum due to the additional weight provided by the Mercury. Convince yourself! You will find that the added weight has a much greater effect. Just adding more weight with lead is cheaper and gives the same benefit. -Rob

quote:

Originally posted by Robgunbuilder:
Shakari- I think I actually have a good understanding of the law of conservation of Momentum. The Physics you describe are actually quite complicated and If I were in a mood for a pissing contest, I'd do a little educating. But here is a clue. Calculate the percentage of velocity reduction due to Inertial resistance of the amount of Mercury your using on momentum versus the effect on the total Momentum due to the additional weight provided by the Mercury. Convince yourself! You will find that the added weight has a much greater effect. Just adding more weight with lead is cheaper and gives the same benefit. -Rob

Rob,

I think we'll have to disagree then. Newton and more recently Stephen Hawking (amongst others) tell us that energy never disappears, it just changes form.

The movement in the two examples I mentioned are proof of the additional benefit of how movement benefits the absorbation of recoil. In other words, a solid weight relies on weight alone whereas a mercury tube or tungsten bead recoil arrestor has weight + movement to work at reducing the recoil and is therefore more effective than weight alone.

If you check that other thread I posted the link to, you'll see that I don't profess to be a clever bastard but it has been proved that Newton and Hawking (amongst others) are clever bastards and their theories have been proved to be right time and time again, so that's more than enough proof for me to believe that they were right.

However, if I see Newton or Hawking, I'll be happy to tell them that you say they're wrong and it's your belief that all the years of research they did was a waste of their time.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:

Steve, none of the links you have provided, nor any of the equations in those links, proves that adding a mercury recoil reducer to a rifle is more effective than merely adding an equal amount of static weight.

You have no doubt seen that the makers of mercury recoil devices do not claim or cite any proof relative to how much their devices actually reduce recoil?

There's a very good reason for that. They can't prove that their devices produce any significant reduction!

As I understand it, the equation one needs to solve in order to understand how a mercury recoil reducer works (or doesn't) is the one for an inelastic collision between two bodies.

AR member Nitroman furnished it to me in connection with an old thread on this subject, but I can't find it anymore.

IIRC, what the equation proves is that there will be a greater reduction in recoil using a mercury reducer as compared to just adding an equal amount of weight to the rifle, but that the magnitude of the greater reduction is so tiny as to be insignificant.

Yet our bodies perceive a greater reduction in "felt recoil" than the equation proves in absolute terms, because no matter how slight it is, our bodies can feel the reduction in the rifle's recoil velocity.

Perhaps someone who better remembers his mechanics can provide us with the relevant equation.

One more time, from the link shakari posted above.

Also one more time from the aforementioned link.

The reason I say it's inaccurate is that I'm sure some do cite figures of reduction but I haven't looked and I guess it'd take a lot of time to do such research to find who does and doesn't....... I'm actually fairly sure I saw it on a ballistics program somewhere when I was having the .500 built but unfortunately can't remember where. and let's face it, the math formula would be relatively simple when compared to such things as this:

http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu...ectex/courses/cubic/

or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem

If they can work that sort of clever shit out, I have no doubt rifle recoil with/without an arrestor would be relatively easy.

So to answer your question of do I seriously believe such a formula exists, yes I do.

As for the makers... I don't know if any of them do publish figures but as I've said, I'd expect some do but it'd take a lot of time to find who does and who doesn't.

But the greatest proof of an arrestor being more effective than an equal amount of dead weight can be found in Newton's laws of motion. The fact is they cannot be defeated.

If you want a simple example of how they work, take a part filled bottle (don't forget to put the top on ) lay it on it's side, wait for it to settle and then move it sharply forward.

That wave you see is the proof of the (3rd) rule that for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction and is the energy of the movement being absorbed.

Frankly and without meaning to be rude, for blokes on this forum to suggest that they're right & people such as Newton & Hawking are wrong is bloody ludicrous in the extreme..

Shakari

Send Luan and Aubs over to explain it.

\

SSR

quote:

Originally posted by Cross L:
Shakari

Send Luan and Aubs over to explain it.

\

SSR

Or maybe Stephen Hawking if he's not too busy writing such 'ill informed' books such as A Brief History Of Time and The Universe In A Nutshell.

It'll be interesting to see if he has to rewrite all his work after he's been convinced by the naysayers here!

This the way I hold and shoot boomers. The most immportant thing to control is muzzle jump.
I am a right handed shooter and this is how I hold and shoot. The left hand on the foreend holds with crushing grips and pulls back towards the shoulder. The pistol gripping hand also holds with crushing hand grips and pushes towards muzzle. All muscles in forearms and biceps are tensed like in isometrics. Butt of rifle is only firmly against shoulder like a firm handshake. Arms take recoil and slow it down considerably. This will take practice to get muscles used to it. But it works. I have shot a 600NE, 577, 500/450, 450, 458 Lott, my 450#2. In competition I have fired 32 shots and no bruising.
Muzzle breaks and pistons are not necessary. Practice is needed...

Mike