Should the cylinder be installed in a hole that is drilled parallel to the barrel axis, or should the hole be drilled following the slope of the buttstock? To me, it seems that the 1st idea is more logical, but I don't trust my own logic. I have a too-light SxS double 9.3x74R that punishes me.
Thanks for your comments.
Alex

both work and both are suggested by the various makers.. one maker provides instructions showing BOTH ways.

I've done both, and can't remember if it made a difference, so i doubt it "actually" did

Thanks!

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
both work and both are suggested by the various makers.. one maker provides instructions showing BOTH ways.

I've done both, and can't remember if it made a difference, so i doubt it "actually" did

I think it does, Jeff. Not all recoil tubes are mercury. The maker I recall that recommends parallel installation is Dead Mule and IIRC, theirs is a deadweight acting against gas pressure or a spring and therefore position-insensitve.

The mercury tube needs the mercury to be at rest in the rear of the tube to be most effective. Following the toe line of the stock gives the best chance of that under most hunting conditions; it allows for some small amount of muzzle depression. The rifle begins rearward motion but the mercury mass doesn't until the forward end cap of the tube contacts it. Overcoming the inertia of the mercury is what enhances the effect over what a simple deadweight in the stock will do. Same for the spring-loaded mass.

I think some folks who have installed them (mercury tubes) parallel or head-down have negated part of the effect and are at least some of the crowd that says they are no better than the same amount of lead in a stock. JMNSHO

That IS interesting. I wondered about exactly that, since unless the mercury is at the rear of the tube.....the ONLY advantage is its added weight....and NOT the inertia of its entire mass acting forward, then striking the inner front of the tube. Comments???

I know I just defended mercury tubes as superior to an equal amount of dead weight. That doesn't mean I automatically endorse them. I'd rather have twice the weight in the same hole as spend the extra bucks. In heavy recoiling rifles, I think weight trumps technology as long as you can get enough in there.

I'm guessing that the best and most practical use for technology like mercury tubes would be in shotgun sports where practice and competition require hundreds of rounds to be shot versus the 10 or twenty big bore rounds one might shoot at the bench. Any reduction in the fatigue factor without hindering balance and responsiveness is welcome over absolute recoil reduction at any cost.

I installed a mercury recoil reducer in my Ruger No. 1/458Lott and can only say that it definitely made a very good difference in felt recoil for me. Made no alterations to the butt stock and merely used the hole for the attachment bolt to the receiver. Can not use the term mild regarding recoil, but it is acceptable for a No. 1 in that bore size. Let's just say it is fun to shoot now and was not fun to shoot without the recoil reducer.

quote:

Originally posted by conifer:
That IS interesting. I wondered about exactly that, since unless the mercury is at the rear of the tube.....the ONLY advantage is its added weight....and NOT the inertia of its entire mass acting forward, then striking the inner front of the tube. Comments???

i can't really explain .. but its ALOT like the recoil buffer in an AR15 -- you have a definate TWO recoils .. primary and secondary .. total is the same, timing and size of each impact is different.

yes, you actually get hit TWICE BOOOMbom..

Having worked with trap shooters, I've come the the following conclusion: The mercury recoil reducers work well when 50-100 shots are taken into account.

One or two shots???don't think so...of course, my mother used to say "If it makes you feel better to carry an apple in your pocket...do so!"

I've heard varying accounts of the effectiveness of Hg recoil reducers, but if you're contemplating boarding an airplane with one, you might want to check the regs... mercury and airframes aren't normally regarded as a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by conifer:
Should the cylinder be installed in a hole that is drilled parallel to the barrel axis, or should the hole be drilled following the slope of the buttstock? To me, it seems that the 1st idea is more logical, but I don't trust my own logic. I have a too-light SxS double 9.3x74R that punishes me.
Thanks for your comments.
Alex

**Wispers** PPST! HEY! Try Both :P Double Your recoil dampening!

A side note on the comment about the ar15. I maintained fire arms in the army trained well over any unit level armors.

One of the ways a ar15(or 10)/M16/M4 to dampen recoil is if you look down the butt stock or look a it side profile you see something you dont see in many rifles.
The stock is inline with the barrel, right along the same axes. So the theory behind it is that the recoil is now being distributed straight into the operator of the rifle. So now any recoil felt is a direct push and not a downward punch into your shoulder. Now combine that with the spring in the stock that returns the bolt into battery and the blow back gas operating system you end up with a very mild recoil.
Food for thought.

In theory, inserting a mercury recoil reducer following the "slope" of the stock would tend to lift the stock up under your face as the mercury shifts to the front of the tube under recoil. i.e. the vector line of the mercury momentum is not parallel to the rifle recoil.

I have never seen one of these reducers so don't know if there is any baffling to keep the mercury to the rear of the tube if the rifle is not being shot level or not slightly elevated. As other posts have commented, the effect of the mercury forward momentum to counter the bullet rearward momentum (recoil) would be negated if the rifle was held level or depressed. In this case only the mercury mass added to that of the rifle is countering the recoil effect.

Personally I would not bother with recoil reducers for hunting but would use extra padding etc when on the bench, or just clamp the teeth shut and enjoy the experience of shooting the big stuff!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by rugeruser:
I've heard varying accounts of the effectiveness of Hg recoil reducers, but if you're contemplating boarding an airplane with one, you might want to check the regs... mercury and airframes aren't normally regarded as a good thing.

its SEALED, welded shut, and then sealed into your stock, and then that is sealed. short of a steel cutting chop saw, its not getting out

the lithum in your cellphone battery is more accessable .. and traveling with too much weight in lithum batteries is now a no-no.