quote:

Why the hell would someone want a Harley

FWIW, I've had them in a variety of rifles over the years and absolutely swear by them.

The most memorable example I've experienced was when I had my .500 made. They gave it to me to take away & test shoot and it damn near tore me in two..... it really was a bastard to shoot, so I took it back & told them to make a plan and we agreed they'd fit a mercury tube.

They called me back a few days later and told me to shoot it again. It was like shooting a different rifle and not much worse than a .375 H&H....... numerous people have shot in the intervening years and all have agreed with that statement.......

Michael,

You said: "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!"

You'll excuse me for saying so but that statement is far from accurate.

It could easily be done with pressure measuring equipment and I have no doubt whatsoever it could also be proved mathmatically..... If they can work out the thrust generated by and speed at any moment in time of a space shuttle, and Stephen Hawking can work out all the clever shit he does, I'm sure the recoil figures of a rifle with and without a mercury tube would be a doddle.

I don't know the formula because I'm not a clever bastard but I'll guarantee there is one.

Enfieldspares,

You raise a good point.

With regard to my .500, it balances perfectly and points & shoots like a skeet shotgun and more generally, I guess the gunsmith just finds a way to adjust balance if he needs to..... even if he has to put two smaller ones in with one in the fore end & one in the back, instead of one larger one.

There's also the fact that you lose the weight of the wood you remove in drilling the hole. I guess that isn't a large factor but it must be a factor.

quote:

The most memorable example I've experienced was when I had my .500 made. They gave it to me to take away & test shoot and it damn near tore me in two..... it really was a bastard to shoot, so I took it back & told them to make a plan and we agreed they'd fit a mercury tube.

They called me back a few days later and told me to shoot it again. It was like shooting a different rifle and not much worse than a .375 H&H....... numerous people have shot in the intervening years and all have agreed with that statement.......

I made a statement like this and CCMDoc was on my case and rightly so.

You have no comparison of a mercury reducer vs. lead. You never tried lead in that gun. But you do make an incredible claim.

You say your 50 cal recoils like a 375! And it handles like a skeet gun! Wow!

quote:

Originally posted by fourbore:

quote:

The most memorable example I've experienced was when I had my .500 made. They gave it to me to take away & test shoot and it damn near tore me in two..... it really was a bastard to shoot, so I took it back & told them to make a plan and we agreed they'd fit a mercury tube.

They called me back a few days later and told me to shoot it again. It was like shooting a different rifle and not much worse than a .375 H&H....... numerous people have shot in the intervening years and all have agreed with that statement.......

I made a statement like this and CCMDoc was on my case and rightly so.

You have no comparison of a mercury reducer vs. lead. You never tried lead in that gun. But you do make an incredible claim.

You say your 50 cal recoils like a 375! And it handles like a skeet gun! Wow!

If anyone doubts the statement about handling, they could always ask those members who have handled it.... Amongst them are DDRHook, Ledvm, Retreever (I think) and Ernest (I think).

DDRHook will also tell you I can make it sound almost belt fed when the need arises..... I can't remember most of those who have/haven't shot it but one who has is Rudi/375Fanatic so you could always ask him what he thinks of the recoil.

BTW. I said "not much worse than a .375' I did not say like a 375.

The rifle was designed to my spec & size and FWIW has a 19 inch heavy barrel which helps a lot with that skeet style handling.

OK, I've just got my .500 & my .404 out and checked the balance point on them.

The balance point of the .500 is just behind where the front of the extended mag changes shape.

On the (scoped) .404, it's right where the hinge of the floorplate is. So in other words, pretty much identical to the .500.

Both are fitted with mercury tube recoil arrestors and both were unloaded.

Steve-


What's the story on the damage to the forend wood?



Cheers
Tinker

The bloody thing has got no end of dings & dents from use..... I think those ones are where it got bitten by a Landrover cubby box when I was educating DDRHook on the intricies of driving a Landy on a bad road at night.

He wasn't very impressed as I remember!

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
OK, I've just got my .500 & my .404 out and checked the balance point on them.

The balance point of the .500 is just behind where the front of the extended mag changes shape.

On the (scoped) .404, it's right where the hinge of the floorplate is. So in other words, pretty much identical to the .500.

Both are fitted with mercury tube recoil arrestors and both were unloaded.

Both are slightly butt-heavy, balance point should be a little forward of where yours are balancing, like right on the center of the front action screw.
Bobbing a not-so-heavy barrel to 19 inches tends to do that.
Less weight in the butt and more weight in the forearm is needed.

Steve

Are you still blaming all your bad habits on Hook?

He deserves it.



SSR

RIP,

I'll take that opinion under ummmmmmmmm consideration and in the meantime, as it's worked just fine for me until now, I'll stick with it as it is thanks.

Cross L

He does indeed...... but ya'know what..... hunting with him was one of the most enjoyable and fun safaris I've conducted in 30 odd years and I'm glad to say I now count him as a bloody good friend.

He really is one tough son of a bitch!

Going back to the .500 for a moment. I said I can make that rifle sound almost belt fed when the need arises. I forgot to say you'll be able to cover all the holes with an open hand.

I don't mean that to sound like a boast because it's not. It is however a fact.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Michael,

You said: "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!"

You'll excuse me for saying so but that statement is far from accurate.

It could easily be done with pressure measuring equipment and I have no doubt whatsoever it could also be proved mathmatically..... If they can work out the thrust generated by and speed at any moment in time of a space shuttle, and Stephen Hawking can work out all the clever shit he does, I'm sure the recoil figures of a rifle with and without a mercury tube would be a doddle.

I don't know the formula because I'm not a clever bastard but I'll guarantee there is one.

You'll excuse me for asking, but how is my statement far from accurate?

Can you show me a maker of mercury tube recoil reducers that claims a specific, and significant, percentage of absolute recoil reduction caused by installing their reducer in a rifle stock, as compared with only adding an equal amount of weight to the rifle?

You say that you can guarantee that there's an equation showing such a reduction?

You'll excuse me for asking, but please share it with us.

(You'll excuse me for saying so, but that will be quite a trick, because there is none! As the old physicist once said: Mathematics talks; bullshit walks. )

Do you seriously believe that if such an equation existed, the makers of mercury recoil reducers would not be shouting its results from the rooftops?

Felt recoil reduction is another matter. In my experience, the increased recoil reduction offered by a mercury tube is perceptible, but is only slightly more than that afforded by adding weight only.

It's for that reason that the makers of mercury recoil tubes are careful to state the reduction their devices offer in qualitative, rather than quantitative, terms.

YA YA YA STEVE blames me for everything including his contracting malaria while we where in Uganda!!! but you know what It's ok because he was scared to death half the time I was going to hurt myself . If I had a week to write it all down I would tell you about the trip that caused the ding in the fore arm of his rifle. It is a dam sweet rifle and the dings and dent just add character to it. the balance is sweet.

Mike,

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.

I voted the first choice that "My personal experience indicates that there is a significant additional reduction in the felt recoil."

I have had mercury reducers in 3 of my shotguns for up to 35 years, and have mechanical reducers in the stocks of two of my magnum rifles. Prior to installing the mercury reducers in my Trap and Skeet shotguns, I tried putting lead shot in the stocks, but I feel that the mercury reducers work better.

The third shotgun that I put a mercury reducer in is a 12 ga. Remington 870 that I use for bird hunting. For a month or so before bird season, I'll shoot one or two rounds of skeet with it every week. Before I put the reducer in, I would get a bruised cheek bone with less than one box of shells. Since I installed the reducer, I have not had any bruising, even after shooting 100 shells one evening.

As to a comment that there is a shoshing sound with mercury reducers, I have not experienced this. I have shot well over 200,000 shells through my shotguns and have never heard any sound from any of the reducers. Even when I first bought my reducers, I shook them, and there wasn't any shoshing sound.

I haven't heard any sloshing either, but only have 400 rounds through my 500 Jeffery. It may well be brand specific