Terry Wieland wrote, in his Dangerous Game Rifles book, that his California built,(Merkel action), Rigby .500 NE had mercury recoil reducers in buttstock, from Rigby, and that he removed them. From Rigby, rifle weighed 12.5 lbs, and, with recoil reducers out, it weighed just under 11 lbs. HE NOTICED LESS RECOIL WITH REDUCERS OUT, due to heavy buttstock moving downward upon firing, but shooting 6 inches low at 50 yards with reducers out. Rifle was obviously regulated by Rigby with the reducers in, thus the difference. Other modern double rifle makers install the reducers in their rifles too.
I read somewhere on this website that dpcd and others, installed merc. recoil reducers in their Sabattis, and now I would like to try to gather some data from everyone who has done that, and anyone too, who has put them in any other make double rifle: Please tell me, 1. what make and caliber double you put them in, 2. how much weight, in mercury rec. red. you put in, 3. weight of rifle prior to installation, 4. point of bullet impact CHANGE, if any, after installation.

DRJ

Good questions.

Some people also use other types of recoil reducers (non mercury), I think Dead Mule is one, for the reason that mercury is not allowed on planes.

quote:

Originally posted by 500N:
DRJ

Good questions.

Some people also use other types of recoil reducers (non mercury), I think Dead Mule is one, for the reason that mercury is not allowed on planes.

I agree - DRJ: Good questions.

And I didn't know that about mercury on planes. Thanks for the info.

Mercury is toxic, of course, though used considerably in thermometers and other things for years; not allowed a lot of places these days, but I would bet that more than a few mercury recoil reducers in buttstocks of many modern double rifles have been flown on planes in recent times, with nobody knowing the difference, for the mercury in those recoil reducers is contained within a solid steel rod that is sealed with a solid steel heavy end cap, sealed forever from leaking, and that mercury containing rod is within the buttstock of numerous modern double rifles, so even in the event of a huge crash, or some such thing, it is not going to get out. I seriously doubt if that is reason other types of recoil reducers are made, but it is a good selling point for those makers! I am aware of the other types of recoil reducers, not as practical, I think, but am interested here in only the mercury type, for comparison of aforementioned data collection.

doublejack,
Welcome to the forum.
I don’t understand…. Why would someone say that recoil was reduced in a lighter rifle?
I don’t understand…. Why no one who has installed mercury recoil reducers or any other make of reducer has ever to my knowledge posted on hear that it has changed their regulation? Yes there were some who had problems with installing heavy scopes on light rifles.
I don’t understand…. “due to heavy butt stock moving downward upon firing” I think the rifle never did fit Wieland and he isn’t knowledgeable enough to know that.
That’s my opinion.
Bill

Welcome to AR.

Brownell's and others all seem to ship Mercury recoil reducers via air without any issues. I had them put into my Sabatti 500 NE by JJ Perodeau. The balance point is now just IFO the trigger guard, which is where it should be for comfortable carry as well as shooting, IMO. Added approximately 2 lbs. Roughly from 9.5# to just under 11.5#.

Some folks don't put alotta stock in anything Weiland says.

I can't comment on change of POI as I'm still trying to get it out to the range.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Cooley:
doublejack,
Welcome to the forum.
I don’t understand…. Why would someone say that recoil was reduced in a lighter rifle?
I don’t understand…. Why no one who has installed mercury recoil reducers or any other make of reducer has ever to my knowledge posted on hear that it has changed their regulation? Yes there were some who had problems with installing heavy scopes on light rifles.
I don’t understand…. “due to heavy butt stock moving downward upon firing” I think the rifle never did fit Wieland and he isn’t knowledgeable enough to know that.
That’s my opinion.
Bill

Bill it is not likely that the regulation will change because the weight is in line between the barrels and behind the action. But POI in relation to elevation may change because with less recoil the barrel rise may change thus effecting the position the barrels occupy at bullets exit from the muzzle.

The reason the heavy scope or a scope mounted too high makes so much difference is the touque generated by the weight of the scope high above the center of bore and between the barrels retards muzzle flip to the side away fron the other barrel. The reducer is below the bore and behind the action where it has only an effect of the rearward thrust so is not a real problem for regulation. However as you well know all double rifles do not play by the rules!

FYI, to answer some questions.

Due to getting older I put a 13oz. Breako in the butt stock of My Searcy 500NE. Gun now weighs 12lbs. 4oz. The reducer caused a 18 inch spread in impact, one barrel went to 7 in. high the other 11 in. low at 50 yards.

I also have a friend try an 8oz. with his gun (don't know the make or caliber) with similar results and He then removed it. So some guns are heavily affected. Heck even holding a double "differently" can effect regulation. I tried just lead before the Mercury reducer and it also affected point of impact, but not as much. It also wasn't nearly as effective in spreading out the recoil impulse.

Had Butch re-regulate the gun. Now shoots back to point of aim with about 1.25 in. spread between barrels at 50 yards.

Though the gun is heaver I'm now $600 lighter Oh well.

Roi

dpcd & LionHunter--Thanks for the requested data, and, please, LionHunter, let me know poi once you sort it all out.
Bill C & LionHunter--I know nothing about Wieland, other than what he has written, and what I have read about him. Based on what you two wrote here, you think little of him, so be it. I expressed what he wrote; nothing more/nothing less, without judging it. He also wrote, in same publication, that he repeatedly shot one of the new round action H & H, .500 NE in England, that weighed 10.5 pounds, and recoiled less than his much heavier Rigby, due to better balance with the H & H.
500N--Thanks for emailing me, saying that Australians can no longer get mercury rec. reducers, because they cannot be flown on planes now. I ordered my first one a few days ago, and they said I would have it in less than a week, so no trouble getting them in this country.
Personally, I have never owned, installed, or used a recoil reducer of any kind in the past, but I always did take a passing interest in them. Years ago, a guy with experience with mercury red., in gunsmithing school class, told me that lead weight worked just as well, but I had no basis for knowing if that was in fact true or not. I am very familiar with the theory behind all recoil reducers; their use in double rifles, and familiar with recoil differences in sxs double rifles, o/u double rifles, etc., but am not sure if the theory equals fact, when it comes to their use in the double rifles, thus my reason for asking you all to help in gathering such data, so, again, thank you dpcd and LionHunter for that. Over the years, a few friends told me that their use of merc. red. resulted in a different poi in their double rifles, so I now wanted to hear what others have experienced, thus my asking on this site. Peronally, I don't care to hear the theory rehashed, and opinions expressed, as I have heard it all repeatedly before; I am only interested in the data resulting from their actual use, please.