Comments on: Recoil–Can it Be a Good Thing?

By: VF

VF — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 12:48:15 +0000

Aside from the inherent benefits,I believe the the massive promotion of lighter recoiling cartridges is to encourage more shooters to take up the sport. Youngsters, females, elders, handicapped and newbies in particular. These demographics are necessary for the growth and survival of shooting sports. And why leave that on the table? Also, some folks get debilitating after affects from shooting over decades. Detached retinas, neck spinal issues and other concussive results. It’s even possible manufacturers of firearms products are already wondering when the lawyers and activists will go down that path of liability. No one minds light recoiling firearms. However, let’s not forget the skill required to still shoot heavier recoiling rifles. Shooting magnums from a bench, or a 12 gauge slug, reminds you your alive and there are forces deserving respect and attention.
Besides, does every shooter need to be pampered? It’s the same for offhand shooting. You don’t see much of it, yet it is likely the skill you would need the most in a real life situation.
I only support shoot to zero a scope, test reloads and trajectories at various ranges. Otherwise I only offhand shoot high powered rifles. I still love shooting my .223, 7.62×39 and 30-30 for the low recoiling fun factor , but 75% of my shooting is with cartridges that generate 20 to 35 ft.lbs
of recoil energy. In my case they require firm holds or I can’t get tight groups. Let’s not lose these shooting skills to the wuss culture. Man up
and shoot some real guns the real way.

By: Guy Miner

Guy Miner — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:47:30 +0000

Nice to know I’m not alone, enjoying the recoil of my .500 S&W revolver, .300 Rem Ultra Mag, warm-loaded .45-70 Marlin… The very satisfying push of the .45 ACP/1911 design…

Likely goes right along with enjoying kick-boxing & grappling.

The light recoil .22’s and others are fine, but there is something very satisfying about handling & controlling a firm-recoiling firearm.

Regards, Guy

By: Bob Lowe

Bob Lowe — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:38:47 +0000

If reduced recoil allows more people to shoot rifles they would otherwise be unable to shoot accurately and brings more people to the shooting sports, then use the technology. It would be like refusing to use the lastest powders and bullets to achieve greater accuracy than was achievable in the past. If one likes to endure as much recoil as possible, so be it. I know after having 5 plates and 18 screws placed in my neck due to wearing it out by age 38 with sports and injuries, I would not be able to enjoy shooting my .308 40x or 6.5 WSM. With the brakes installed, I can shoot these rifles up to 50 rounds each on the weekend and not get beat up in the process. Thank goodness for technology.

By: Rust

Rust — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:12:36 +0000

To me, that’s about a pointless concept. The amount of recoil is pretty much determined by the equipment rules for a given form of competition and what will win given the constraints of the rules.

F/TR is one example. Two cartridge choices, no muzzle brakes or cans, a maximum weight limit and there you go.

On the other hand, in unlimited 1,000 yard benchrest how much recoil is there for a rifle equipped with a muzzle brake that weighs so much a normal human being can’t pick it up?

Tactical comps are another one. Form is determined by function, the rifle has to be heavy enough for stability, light enough to handle in field conditions, be mag fed (well, it doesn’t HAVE to be but who’s going to win single feeding). You get the drift.

But recoil being a desired or required component of competition? Hey, I’ve got an unbraked 7-1/2 lb (without scope) .300 RUM in the safe which would do if you absolutely have to have recoil.

By: Zak Smith

Zak Smith — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:49:42 +0000

In the corporate world, there’s a well-known observation that “metrics are good at driving behavior that optimizes those metrics– not necessarily the desired outcome.”

Most of the long-range shooting *games* have no requirement for terminal ballistics other that the bullet poke a hole in the paper target. And most are shot from a stationary position. The ability to hit the X-ring and penetrate a piece of paper is the metric.

So obviously behavior is modified to optimize for that metric, and quite clearly smallish caliber low-recoil cartridges in heavy guns dominate.

Cooper was a proponent of practical shooting in the field, with a focus on real-world applications. In these cases, terminal effects on target and the ability to carry and employ the weapon in the field are distinctly important.

USPSA, “Outlaw” 3-Gun, and practical rifle matches around the country have been trying to figure out the right “metrics” – codified into match rules – for years.