Best of luck with your 500 Jeffery, it's a lovely caliber.

doubledown,
Did I miss something on your 500 Jeffery having a particularly skinny custom barrel, besides being only 23" long?
Is it a factory CZ Safari Classic or is it custom?

Rip, Its a factory CZ 550, I ordered it with a 23" barrel, nothing custom. Wayne at AHR did the sights , trigger and action work. I think I need to weigh it on another scale.

My other composite stock I filled with shot weighed in on "my" scale at 12 pounds, and could be shot all day. I shoot this gun quite a bit and 20-30 rounds on a Saturday is pretty normal.

When I put the unfilled stock on my rifle my proficiency with the rifle plummeted. First shot would hit the target, the second and third shots were off the paper. I went from being deadly, to being a disaster, for me the light weight was too much for me to be accurate.


I will try the CZ stock first to see how I shoot it, and make a decision after that.

Thank, Steve

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
doubledown,
Karl: No barney here. I agree that the mercury recoil reducers are not worth the trouble for the little they do.
Physics-wise the only possible difference is spreading the recoil over a few miliseconds longer.
The recoil chicken just comes to roost with an imperceptibly slower flap of the wings.
The weight of mercury a-sloshin' is miniscule compared to the total weight of the gun.

The mercury tubes also contain significant lightening gas/air space to allow the mercury to slosh if it is to have any added effect besides weight.
Sacrifices the possible weight addition.
Total weight possible addition is better with lead.
You could do better by using tungsten shot or rod which is heavier than lead, and any good epoxy like Acraglass or JB Weld.


[

That has also been my experience Ron, and how I pictured it also. I think some folk would benefit from leaving guys like Hawkins and Newton out of these discussions and substitute some regular physic textbook authors for the 12th grade level.

quote:

Originally posted by Karl:
I think some folk would benefit from leaving guys like Hawkins and Newton out of these discussions and substitute some regular physic textbook authors for the 12th grade level.

Why after all let some of the greatest scientific minds that ever lived & their theories that have been proved time & time & time again get in the way of of sheer bloody ignorance huh?

Don't walk too far away guys, you might accidentally fall off the edge of the world!

quote:

I agree that the mercury recoil reducers are not worth the trouble for the little they do.

My shoulder begs to differ. Not sure how, but the mercury tube works better than static weight based on what I feel.
Both make a substantial difference in felt recoil with the extra pound of weight going from 8 pounds to 9 pounds.

That is in a 458 Lott, how does the 500 compare in the severity and acceleration of the recoil. The Lott is pretty sharp compared to most.

quote:

Originally posted by Hunting the Box H:

quote:

I agree that the mercury recoil reducers are not worth the trouble for the little they do.

My shoulder begs to differ. Not sure how, but the mercury tube works better than static weight based on what I feel.
Both make a substantial difference in felt recoil with the extra pound of weight going from 8 pounds to 9 pounds.

That is in a 458 Lott, how does the 500 compare in the severity and acceleration of the recoil. The Lott is pretty sharp compared to most.

Yep, add a pound of mercury recoil reducers or a pound of lead, no perceptible difference.

The 500 Jeffery, or A-Square, or Mbogo, etc:
That is a step up from mere .458 Lott recoil.
That is a perceptible difference,
if all are loaded to potential, in rifles of the same WEIGHT!!!

Recoil perception is very subjective, and is mainly a matter of being "willin'" to shoot and control that rifle.
The placebo effect is another mental aspect of recoil reduction by mercury.
Placebo effect is about 30% with a sugar pill.
Mind over matter!
That is the perceived additional recoil reduction of a pound of mecury over a pound of lead.
It is far less than 30%, however,
but it is mainly placebo for those that want to believe.
I have two 11 ounce mercury reducers (steel cylinders containing sloshing mercury)that screw together on a little piece of headless bolt threaded end-to-end.
I tried them in the butt of a 12-Guage from Hell NEF.
I balanced that with a big 50 BMG muzzle brake, bored out to 12-guage, to add muzzle weight.
Filling the same size hole as the mercury reducers required with lead shot in epoxy, instead, added more weight and worked better.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Karl:
I think some folk would benefit from leaving guys like Hawkins and Newton out of these discussions and substitute some regular physic textbook authors for the 12th grade level.

Why after all let some of the greatest scientific minds that ever lived & their theories that have been proved time & time & time again get in the way of of sheer bloody ignorance huh?

Don't walk too far away guys, you might accidentally fall off the edge of the world!

No one is debating the 'world's greatest minds' just the 'average mind' pulling their names into discussions to back up a pet theory

If you start quoting some specific physicists ,engineers or even providing your grasp of some general math supporting the specific matter at hand we might be more interested.

Karl,

It's the greatest minds who have established and proved the theories therefore they have to come into it. To ignore them is to ignore the science and instead go for blind belief and nothing else and if you did that, you could say 2+2 = 256 etc.

Let me try to rephrase it for you.

For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. (Newton's laws of motion)

Energy never disappears, it just changes form. Hawking & others have proved this many times but feel free to Google the term 'energy'. - That remark isn't a piss take. If you search the term you'll get plenty of good explanations of what I mean.

Those two factors cannot be changed. They are reality.

With a solid mass, you have the weight alone to react against the recoil.

In a liquid mass of the same weight, you have the weight plus the movement of the liquid, plus work required to run uphill to react against the recoil. (If that were not the case, the liquid would not move but it obviously does)

There's also minor factors such as a minimal heat increase in the liquid but I'll ignore those because they're so minimal.

In the former case, you have just the one factor to help absorb the recoil and in the latter you have the other factors that come into play as well.

If you actually try those two very simple experiments I mentioned earlier, you'll see proof that I'm right.

It's all about action & reaction.

I've only scanned it rather than properly read it but THIS looks interesting.

Let's also not forget that stock design is also a fairly major factor in felt recoil.

quote:

Originally posted by Robgunbuilder:
I think you have achieved a nearly perfect weight for a hunting rifle. You'll be carrying it far longer than you'll shoot it. You can take nearly any amount of recoil for two shots. Try some loads before you add weight. In my experience those Mercury Recoil reducers do little more than add very expensive weight. -Rob

I MUST SECOND THAT ONE !!!!!

One thing we can all agree with is that the OP has chosen a magnificent calibre. I've had mine for something like 15 years and I love it to bits!

Another way to look at it. Put 10 ton of hay on a truck (strapped down) and try to stop, then put ten ton of fluid in a tank on your truck, half full with no baffles and try to stop. It will all become clear!

quote:

Originally posted by eny:
Another way to look at it. Put 10 ton of hay on a truck (strapped down) and try to stop, then put ten ton of fluid in a tank on your truck, half full with no baffles and try to stop. It will all become clear!

That's actually a brilliant way of explaining it!

quote:

Originally posted by eny:
Another way to look at it. Put 10 ton of hay on a truck (strapped down) and try to stop, then put ten ton of fluid in a tank on your truck, half full with no baffles and try to stop. It will all become clear!

OK.
Put a half ton of fluid in a tank with enough air space to allow the fluid to slosh freely, on a 10-ton truck.
Try to stop.
Imperceptible change in braking response.
Similar to the weight ratio of the mercury content to the total rifle weight.

Or use your 10-ton of fluid on a 200-ton truck.

Or could we get 10 pounds of mercury hidden in a 10-pound rifle for total rifle weight of 20 pounds?

10 pounds of mercury slamming "uphill" against the 10-pound rifle in free recoil would slow it down some. But it will not make the 20-pound total stand still.

"Full ahead, impulse power, Mr. Scott."



But actually, the better comparison would be how hard does a tiny tank of fluid on the truck make it for the truck to accelerate forward from a standstill?

A. A 10 ton truck with a half ton of fluid on the back of it,
or
B. a 10-ton truck with a half ton of lead (or feathers) on the back of.

(assume a vacuum to negate air resistance if feathers are used)

Rev the engines of both and pop the clutch of each.
Which one accelerates forward more slowly?

What if you used a ton of lead versus the half ton of mercury?

You can fit a greater weight of lead in the space occupied by a mercury recoil reducer which has an outer shell of lighter steel and an air space inside to allow the sloshing.

It is also much easier to install lead in various here&theres of the rifle for balance, rather than making mercury recoil reducers fit here and there.

acceleration or deceleration, the results are the same. It's just that brakes are cheaper than clutches.

quote:

Originally posted by eny:
acceleration or deceleration, the results are the same. It's just that brakes are cheaper than clutches.

True.
And the results with the weight ratios mentioned above are the same too, whether braking or accelerating.

I would rather use tungsten shot in epoxy:

Specific gravities/densities: g/cc or X1000Kg/cubic meter: 1 gram per cubic centimeter = 1000 Kg per cubic meter = 1.000 specific gravity
A cubic meter of dry air weighs 1.3 KG, and a cubic meter of water weighs 1000 Kg at standard conditions: 1 atmosphere and 4 degrees C.


Dry Air = 0.0013
Water at 4C = 1.000
Aluminum melted/cast = 2.560 - 2.640
Aluminum foil = 2.700 - 2.750
Stainless Steels = 7.480 - 8.000
Brass, various, rolled and drawn = 8.430 - 8.730
Copper = 8.930
Lead = 11.340
Mercury = 13.593
Uranium = 18.900
Gold = 19.320
Tungsten = 19.600

I hope the OP figures out something quick because this whole post is starting to make my eyes bleed!

Ok, what weight would a 500 Jeffery with an effective muzzle brake have to be to have equal felt recoil to an unbraked 11 lb 500 Jeffery, both shooting the same cartridge (say a 570g bullet at 2300 fps)?

Its been a looong winter up here, I finally got to shoot the Jeffery with the new CZ Kevlar stock, and I have to say it wasn't bad, compared to the last composite stock that I had on it. I only put 15 rounds through it, but had no problem keeping fast follow up shots on target.

I am going to keep it the way it is, The last composite stock I had at this weight beat me to death. But I'm real happy with how this one shoots, a little surprised but happy. The loads I shot today were 700 cast @ 2100 fps 600 Woodleigh @ 2350fps and a 535 Woodleigh @ 2550fps

700g at 2100 fps! Ouch ouch ouch lol

Ok Guys,
I missed this post, Doubledown is a good friend and one of the reasons for my insanity, well a love of recoil, I got a chance to get out and do some shooting today and we broke out the jeffe!

8lbs 1 oz is no BS, my 7 mag weighs more,
I shot this rifle today and lets say it will make your brain rattle, the scale doesn't lie, stock shape is great but way to fing light, but JMHO,

RIP:

According to the the CZ web site, the fancy walnut stock CZ 500 Jeffery weighs in at 10.94 pounds. The site also says:

"The rifles chambered in .505 Gibbs and .500 Jeffery include a mercury recoil reducer installed in the stock as well."

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
RIP:

According to the the CZ web site, the fancy walnut stock CZ 500 Jeffery weighs in at 10.94 pounds. The site also says:

"The rifles chambered in .505 Gibbs and .500 Jeffery include a mercury recoil reducer installed in the stock as well."

Thanks, Dave,
I acquired one of the CZ .505 Gibbs rifles when it first came out.
The mercury recoiler reducer was not included in the stocking back then, nor were crossbolts.

I since had a complete glass bedding with pillars and crossbolts added, which only add a few ounces.
The rifle has a 24" barrel as it came from factory.
The weight is 10.56 pounds.
It looks just like a 500 Jeffery externally, same barrel profile, the only one I have seen.
I do not know how I could get this rifle close to 8 pounds.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
RIP:

According to the the CZ web site, the fancy walnut stock CZ 500 Jeffery weighs in at 10.94 pounds. The site also says:

"The rifles chambered in .505 Gibbs and .500 Jeffery include a mercury recoil reducer installed in the stock as well."

Thanks, Dave,
I acquired one of the CZ .505 Gibbs rifles when it first came out.
The mercury recoiler reducer was not included in the stocking back then, nor were crossbolts.

I since had a complete glass bedding with pillars and crossbolts added, which only add a few ounces.
The rifle has a 24" barrel as it came from factory.
The weight is 10.56 pounds.
It looks just like a 500 Jeffery externally, same barrel profile, the only one I have seen.
I do not know how I could get this rifle close to 8 pounds.

I have no reason to lie about the weight of this rifle,

the scale doesn't lie either, 8lbs 1 oz with the CZ kevlar stock,23 inch barrel, unloaded.

Its no joke, I may have a picture of the rifle on the scale, But this thing is way too light, at least for me,

RIP, I can't explain why it's so light it just is, buts it was one hell of a ride though!

I am no expert on Big bore rifles ...

But my CZ 550 Mag kevlar stocked 416 Rigby weighs exactly 9 lbs and is a real pleasure to shoot. I added Warne QD rings & a Leupold 1-4X VX2 scope.

It recoils straight back into my shoulder with no muzzle jump and the recoil is not punishing. I fired 18 rounds at the range the first time & no sore shoulder or sore cheek the next day. I shot goats with it and was able to shoot goats at 130 meters off hand & reload quickly.

I suspect that your rifle's metal may be too light. What is the barrel profile?

I consider the 500 Jeffery a stopping gun and 8 pounds it too light IMO, easy to carry? I grant you that, you shoot it very little? OK thats a good point but seems like recoil recovery is never a consideration until you have a last minute case of severe indigestion!

I believe that with a 44 magnum as a defence gun has too much recoil to recover quickly, and I believe a 500 should weigh at least 11 pounds to recover quickly, I hate looking up when I should be looking at a moving target headed my way, and I only speak for myself, and I'm basing that on the one and only 7.5 Lb. 505 Gibbs that I built for myself based on carry a lot, shoot a little, and it didn't work for me at all. .

I am a convert to Limbsaver recoil pads if you are ok with the look. The black grind to fit should look fine and they really work. I would do that first before adding weight, but I'd guess 8lbs is less than I'd want too!

By the way, can't you add a pound just by loading the magazine?