Please identify any hydraulic or mercury or other recoil reducer that functions from within a rifle's butt stock that you have used or that a shooting companion has used.

I specifically do not refer to a recoil pad, rather a device in addition to a recoil pad.

In your experience are such devices reliable AND durable - that is, will such a device do its intended job for 1000 rounds?

I have DeadMule recoil reducers in my .470 Capstick.

They work fine.

George

I've used the Dead Mules as well, and they seem to do the trick...but so does an iron or lead rod of about the same weight installed in the buttstock. I'm trying to convince myself that the mercury device is doing more than just adding weight, but I really can't say for sure.

John

I have used Dead Mules as well and Tiger Tamers. All work, but I think it is just the added weight......Tom

I have Mercury recoil reducer in my trap gun. Forget the brand but it works great.

I have two mercury recoil reducers in my 500 Jeffery. I know I know, I'm a wuss ...

With all due respect. Do a search on Mercury recoil reducers. This has been discussed here many times. Yes they work, are they better than just adding weight? You decide.-Rob

Mercury recoil reducers add weight in a concentrated form...more weight per area basically...lead is next, then steel. Lead is great because you can either form it plastically or by melting and casting or by using shot mixed with epoxy.

I've used all those methods and they all work. The only problem that might occure is with inertia...you HAVE TO CAPTURE and hold ANY kind of added weight from moving under recoil otherwise you have a missle on your hands or up your nose if something breaks.

I had one aftermarket forarm with an additional 20 oz of shot/epoxy mix added to a groove in it in a rechambered to 45-120 Nef BC, shear the mount boss under recoil. I installed two dovetails mounts on the barrel and brass inserts in the forarm that solved the problem.

Do a search...lots of information scattered all over this and many other forums.

Luck

My 470 Merkel came with a factory weight in the Butt. It was a steel rod about 6"long by the size of the throughbolt hole. Was held in place by a small plate across the rear that was screwed to the butt stock. Actually was fairly effective. I also had a mercury reducer in a Valmet 9.3x74r and it also worked very well. I tried both of them with and without the weights and it was definitely less felt recoil with the added weight. Could not see the mercury worked any better than just the steel rod weight.

The Blaser R 93's that I shoot have a recoil reducer that has some sort of shot in it, I think it is tungsten.

It is designed to add weight to the buttstock, to balance out the weight when you go to a thicker Safari or Match barrel, as well as reduce recoil, by the physics of inertia with the tungesten beads.

I have shot 3 different R 93's side by side in 375 H&H, 2 in 300 Win Mag, and 2 in 308, and I can definately tell the difference in recoil.
The gun with the recoil reducer kicks less.

There are several models of hydraulic butt stocks out there but you usually see them on custom shotguns.

Perhaps this is a good time to find out what I had not considered: Does this class of recoil reducers, in fact, reduce or "stretch" the duration of recoil? OR is recoil "reduced" merely by the addition of weight to the recoiling mass?

More weight reduces felt recoil. Spreading the recoil over more time reduces the felt recoil. The "problem" is that most of these things do both at the same time so it is difficult to separate the effects. The effect of moving mercury/spring recoil reducers is pretty subtle compared to the effect of their weight. If nothing else, they are convenient packages to add weight to the gun.

After all the discussions, my own experience and research, and that of some folks way smarter than me I think it breaks down into two catagories:

Dead weight: Just what is says. Any material that you want.

Kinetic resistance; These are usually either mercury filled or spring loaded tungsten weights inside a tube.

They do exactly what dead weight does plus they interupt the recoil impulse by having to overcome the inertia of the mercury or tungsten at rest. From my own not-so-scientific experiences, the inertial systems work best in shotgun shooting where many rounds are fired in succession. I think they delay the onset of recoil fatigue better than dead weight alone. In a rifle, I don't think the difference is so pronounced between the two that it matters for 10-15 rounds in a total session.

One important issue is which kinetic system you choose and how it is to be mounted. Spring loaded systems can be mounted at any location regardless of the direction of gravity (but they are directional and can be put in backwards if you don't watch out). Mercury systems MUST be loaded in a manner that gravity locates the mercury toward the butt of the gun at firing or you lose the kenetic action under recoil.

I don't care for the spring-butt or hydraulic resistance butt devices like Knoxx or others but that's just me They probably work better for some.

At one time when I had the equipment available I was going to make a fixture to hold a rifle and fire it while the force was recorded using a load cell/computer. The plan was to fire a rifle with no muzzle brake and then with brakes of several brands. Also in the plan was to fire a gun without any device in the stock, with just a weight and then with the mercury recoil reducer.
But alas the load cell and recording equipment went away before I could get the fixture made.
I figured a test like that would give real data rather than just opinions.

Mark

I just got home. My shooting partner has loaned me the current Rifle Magazine. He did so because there is supposed to be an article about these devices. I'll keep you posted.