I'm sure this topic has been beat to death before, but I would like some opinions on the effectiveness of the different types of recoil reducers on the market that are being used in your rifles of .500 and larger. My opinion is that there is not one made that will reduce recoil more than just plain old lead ballast fixed in the stock. The big kickers overpower the mechanical or mercury types and they are reduced to being just dead weight. Expensive dead weight.

well, a 10# 500 jeffe is something you have to train to use!!

imho, mercury tubes are more effective in taming recoil than just lead, and I have tried both...


and after you get used to the gun, and knowing it will not "kill" you, you don't want the extra weight

jeffe

This topic comes up a lot and there seems to be plenty for them and those against them.

The people who say they do more than just add weight appear to usually have real big bangers.

A small extra reduction of recoil with a big banger can seem like a lot and as such I suspect they will work but you might not notice on rifles at the 375 H&H/416 Rem level of recoil.

...I,ve tried heavy weight big bore rifles and tho it works a little .. I haven,t found and thing that comes any where close to a muzzel brake......If you need an 8 oz recoil reducer put it on the muzzel of the rifle.......JMHO&E

Depends on the gun. I put one in my 270 WSM and it works outstanding. My brothers 300 saum not so much. My 270 wsm with reducer, recoils about the same as my buddies 300 wm with a brake. In fact mine may be a little less.

I hate brakes so I went with mercury.

My 375 H&H has a merc tube in the buttstock. I really don't know how much difference it makes because it came with the mercury tube already installed (bought it used).

I can say that the recoil seems less than with my 300WM, both stainless synthetic M70's.

I agree that the mercury tubes' returns diminish around the 7mm mag to 300 mag catagory. Mercury in a big bore may work as a placebo at best. Expensive ballast though.