How much of a difference do they make?
I can't decide whether I should have them put into the stock of my .416 rigby.

John

I prefer them over more dead weight, a 16oz C&H MRS is more effective than 24oz of dead weight in reducing felt recoil in my experience with both.

I once worked for a firm that catered to trap shooters...the feedback I got was that with the reducer after a 100 shots, they felt less punishment at the end than without..i.e, the effect was cumulative than being noticed right off

I had a 13 oz recoil reducer in my 458 Lott and it reduced felt recoil and more espcially vibration significantly. I would have one installed on a Rigby.

quote:

I can't decide whether I should have them put into the stock of my .416 rigby.

my father-in-law has that and a muzzle brake on a Ruger .416; we passed it around between four of us one afternoon and the consensus was the recoil was reduced to about that of an '06.

I really dont advise it for a 416 rigby, the recoil isnt enough to require them.
My objection to them is that if installed in the butt, they alter the balance and if installed in butt and fore end, they reduce the pointability of the weapon. (Ideally, most of the weight should be between the hands, not in the butt and barrel end; that decreases the moment of inertia about a pivot just in front of the trigger)
Now, if you have a big beefy stock, you could possibly put one right in front of the action, but with a big beefy stock you wont need the recoil reducer.
I have a CZ 550 in 505 gibbs with 2 recoil reducers, and it recoils about the same as my other 505, a F Wells custom job that is a half pound heavier, but has no recoil reducers.
About the only benefit is when shooting off a bench, but these rifles are not MEANT to be shot off the bench, and there you can always use a lead sled or sissy bag etc
Just dont expect it to make a 30-06 out of your 416, it wont happen!

quote:

Originally posted by Indlovu:
I really dont advise it for a 416 rigby, the recoil isnt enough to require them.
My objection to them is that if installed in the butt, they alter the balance and if installed in butt and fore end, they reduce the pointability of the weapon. (Ideally, most of the weight should be between the hands, not in the butt and barrel end; that decreases the moment of inertia about a pivot just in front of the trigger)

Yep. If the rifle is a club to begin with, adding a mercury reducer won't hurt anything, but if it handles well, it won't anymore. I'd rather get kicked than tolerate what mercury reducers do to them.

Personally, I've never found any magic to mercury reducers anyway. If they reduce recoil beyond that soaked up by the added weight alone, I've never been able to detect it.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

I have found that a quality recoil pad such as the Pachmayr decellorator magnum, or the Limbsaver is more effective.

Thank you all for your opinions. Very interesting stuff.
It basically boils down to the point that if a rifle is built correctly then a recoil rod isn't really needed.
Another factor is that the wood I'm using is by far the best I've seen for a long time. As a result I am reluctant to start drilling holes in it for these rods.
+ they can alwayd be put in at a later date if required.....


John

I have a 16 oz. C & H Mercury recoil suppressor in the buttstock of my Ruger # 1 Tropical chambered in .416 Rigby.
Felt recoil is probably equal to that of a .300 Win Mag. Without it, recoil is quite substantial.

I have recoil suppressors in my Browning 458 Win Mag, my Remington 375 H&H and my Husqvarna 375 Ruger. The only one that changed balance in a negative manner was the Remington. The other two are just fine.

I also have Decelerator pads on all of these rifle and I give a lot of credit to the pads.

I would not have a rifle with a muzzle brake. My hearing is already diminished and the brakes are damaging to hearing.

Good luck.

quote:

Originally posted by SD Shooter:
I have recoil suppressors in my Browning 458 Win Mag, my Remington 375 H&H and my Husqvarna 375 Ruger. The only one that changed balance in a negative manner was the Remington. The other two are just fine.

I also have Decelerator pads on all of these rifle and I give a lot of credit to the pads.

I would not have a rifle with a muzzle brake. My hearing is already diminished and the brakes are damaging to hearing.

Good luck.

I'm also not a fan of muzzle brakes.
They are simply just not fair on your PH or tracker - although they will seldom put up any resistance as they are usually very grateful for your business.