I may be reaping a whirlwind here but I would welcome any thoughts on types of and method of installing mercury recoil buffers into the stock of a .600 double rifle.

The rifle is presently under construction here in the U.K on a boxlock action. Intercepting sears are to be fitted so hopefully this will obviate the effects of reveresed inertia causing a double discharge.

Not much use appears to be made in the U.K of such devices so any practical thoughs on type preferred and how one goes about installing them would be much appreciated, i.e do they just lie in long drilled holes or are they to be bedded with epoxy?

Also is it better to set them at a slight depressed angle rather than parallel to the bore, so as to optimise forward inertia as the barrels inevitably rise with recoil.

I am thinking along the lines of installing 2 such supressors in the heel of the stock.

You might consider just using lead, brass or steel cylinders in the butt. Works about as well in my experience, doesn't make any annoying sloshing sound, improves the balance of a muzzle-heavy rife, which I suspect yours will be. On two rifles I drilled 7/8" holes in the butts, inserted 7/8" brass dowells several inches long, did not epoxy, placed the recoil pads flush with the ends of the dowells.

Jonathan,

Don't take this the wrong way, but the optimal method for taming the recoil of a .600 is making the rifle heavy, not merely adding mercury recoil suppressors.

That said, I have two DeadMule units in my .470 Capstick, total weight 10.75lbs. They are mechanical, not mercury-types, and only weigh 7oz. each.
This is how they are installed in the stock:


Hope that helps somewhat.

George

I suppose the airlines are not aware of these mercury based recoil reducers. They wouldn't be happy if they knew about them. I ran into this issue in a non-hunting related matter and it was a real problem. Essentially, they wouldn't fly mercury, period.

"they won't fly mercury"....

but they serve tuna fish!!

Forrest, , you just talked me out of another merc tube.. it'll be heavy, not sloshy...

jeffe

Jeffe, you might try the spring loaded type like George mentioned. Some of the mercury types or those that use some kind of liquid do indeed make a sloshing sound however. I think it's mainly the extra weight and improved balance though.

Forrest,
I've had both... you have to shake the HELL out of it to make it slosh, but I see where people can get the idea... it does change handling, though...

i can not STAND spring recoil elements, which is why I don't shoot an AR much,, clackCLACK in my ear!

jeffe

quote:

Not much use appears to be made in the U.K of such devices so any practical thoughs on type preferred and how one goes about installing them would be much appreciated, i.e do they just lie in long drilled holes or are they to be bedded with epoxy?

Also is it better to set them at a slight depressed angle rather than parallel to the bore, so as to optimise forward inertia as the barrels inevitably rise with recoil.

I have three rifles with mercury tubes in the buttstocks. Two with two tubes each and one with one tube. I also have a Blaser with the tungsten bead-filled recoil reducer tube installed in the buttstock.

All of these tubes are fixed in place, either by epoxy or a screw. And all of them lay at the same angle off horizontal as the bottom edge of the buttstock.

Jeffeoso there is an air recol system for the ar looks like a shock absorber from a truck it is silent and replaces the whole spring assembly

for reciol reduction and ballance I use a forstner bit for a perfect hole and then use #4 lead shot for the weight so you can infinatly adjust it untill you like it it works like a dead blow hammer

I have installed many mercury recoil redusers. The sloshing sound is hardly appearant, that may because my hearing was redused while as a student at the Colorado School of Trades I often shot guns with theese rediculous muzzle brakes. Even wearing both plugs and muffs your hearing will take damage at EVERY shot.
Without protection, hell is close.

Back to the Mercury Recoil Redusers. I install them paralell with the bore, bedded in with epoxy, but with a release agent so they can be remooved. Sealed in place with a steel plate wich is inletted and screwed in the stock, to resist it from working its way through the recoil-pad. I have also installed the thinner ones in the forearm of the stock.
I really like them, as does my customers.

I've never used them on a rifle, but have shot a bunch of different ones on trap guns. They really work. Whether it's the weight or the effect, I don't know. I'll have to say I have never ever noticed a sound from one. Guess it's a function of your hearing level.

Whether it is mercury, shot or tungsten, they all have to greatly affect balance. I think the comment about adding weight to the gun is spot on, but often a mercury reducer in the butt is the best way to do it, maybe in conjunction with heavier barrels. It is important that the gun be the proper weight and also that it balance correctly. A good recoil reducer can often be part of this package.

Will the merucry recoil reducers be effective in a 223 remington or a 6BR? I know the recoil on these rifles isn't much for you guys, but I'm partially handicapped and I'm looking to build a light walking rifle.

Thanks,
Kory

Kory,
it's been my experience that you get "all" the recoil, just in two hits, as the merc is denser. I did this on a 500 jeffe and a 416 rem. We've also done it on 470 mbogo...

i think merc works better than lead... myself, but I am willing to see if just a pound of stuff will work

jeffe

Bent Fossdal,

I've installed several Mercury Recoil Reducers. The instructions that came with mine said to install them parallel to bottom of the stock. In essence, tilted downwards at the rear.

This makes more sense to me to do it this way so the mercury should be all settled to the rear of the rifle before firing. If they are mounted parallel to the bore, then the mercury would/could be settled to the front of the tube prior to firing if the gun is level or slightly pointed down. Thus making it no more effective than just extra weight which some people claim to be true in the first place.

I disagree with that assessment. I feel they offer more recoil reduction that the equivalent amount in lead alone. I have to shake mine like crazy to hear the slosh as another had mentioned. I also feel like they have improved the balance in some of my rifles.

The stationary mercury in a tube has inertia. When the gun moves backward under recoil, the tube end slams up against the stationary mercury, taking a little bit of velocity and energy out of the gun's recoil.

I find that mercury recoil reducers are effective at taking the sharp edge off of recoil. Robgunbuilder on this site said he and his son once performed an experiment with a couple of rifles. They shot the rifles with nothing in the butt, with mercury reducers in the butt, and with lead in the butt that weighed the same as the mercury. At the end of the session they concluded that the mercury tubes provided a greater reduction in felt recoil than the same weight of lead.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:Robgunbuilder on this site said he and his son once performed an experiment with a couple of rifles. They shot the rifles with nothing in the butt, with mercury reducers in the butt, and with lead in the butt that weighed the same as the mercury. At the end of the session they concluded that the mercury tubes provided a greater reduction in felt recoil than the same weight of lead.

It would be very odd if they did NOT get that result. If a mercury reducer has ANY reduction ability, then it has to work better than the equivelent amount of dead weight.

Kory

Gents,
on installing the tubes, I've only seen instructions that said either to line up with the bore or the toe-line of the stock.

When I called the maker to ask which was more effective, "either" was the answer. confused me there

jeffe

Thank guys

Seems a stock mounted reducer of some type, mainly mercury types, get the nod.

The rifle will weigh in the region of 15-16 lbs and if I can get into this weight range with 2 reducers installed then things will be fine also the .600 tubes will represent a considerable part of the all up weight so a little weight caused by 2 such tubes in the stock will probably help to adjust the balance and save all the weight being up front.

That the rifle will recoil is inevitable, seems I have little to loose by trying them out.

I must agree, as every rifle/shotgun I have added a mercury reducer to has had a noticable reduction in felt recoil. Particularly on big bore rifles which tend to be muzzle heavy, the added weight in the butt tends to balance things out nicely.

I have a Mercury reducer in the 45-90 BPCR rifle that I've shot. You could really tell the difference after a match, without it my shoulder was a little sore with it you don't notice.
On a hunting rifle I don't think that I would care for the sloshing sound or feel. If I were trying to make a Rifle heavier I would first try and put the weight in the barrel thickness and then add lead or maybe Tungston or Carbide (old mill Bits) expoxied in the buttstock for balance.
On a target rifle though the Mercury reducers are pretty nice...............DJ