[John Ross]

I have created a spreadsheet to calculate recoil velocities for any given gun/load. Download it or just look at the listed data for a bunch of different guns (esp. S&Ws) and loads. It's at

http://www.john-ross.net/recoil.htm

I'll be adding to it in the future.

Download the file at the link provided (if you have Excel) and do your own guns. Plug in gun weight in ounces, powder weight, bullet weight, and muzzle velocity. It generates the rest.

It's especially useful if you have a particular gun/load combo whose recoil you know is acceptable to you, and you want to figure out what loads in what other guns will not exceed this recoil velocity.

JR

[Thumper]

John,

Cool spreadsheet.

[Justin]

Interesting stuff.
I played around with the file for a couple of minutes, and have a couple of questions:

1)Does/should barrel length make a difference in the recoil velocity? (It seems like shorter barreled guns tend to recoil harder, but is that due to the shorter barrel, or the fact that the gun weighs less than it's full-sized kin?
2)Does bullet diameter make a difference in the recoil velocity?

[John Ross]

Your questions:

"1)Does/should barrel length make a difference in the recoil velocity? (It seems like shorter barreled guns tend to recoil harder, but is that due to the shorter barrel, or the fact that the gun weighs less than it's [sic] full-sized kin?"

Yes and no, depending. If we take two M29s, for example, which have the same barrel contour, the shorter one will weigh less and thus kick more. But then again, if the shorter barrel gives us less velocity (which it may or may not, depending on the load) that *reduces* the recoil, which may make up for the lighter weight, or may not. Notice I gave shorter-barreled .44s less velocity in my table with the same loads, because that's the case with the loads I shoot.

That's the numbers part. The subjective part is that longer barreled handguns don't climb as much and that changes the shooter's perception of the recoil, in my case it feels like less. And the shorter barrels are louder, which makes them seem worse.

"2)Does bullet diameter make a difference in the recoil velocity?"

Not by itself, no. That is, if you had guns of identical weight and shape shooting loads of identical bullet weight, powder weight, and muzzle pressure, the recoil would be the same. However, this might be hard to do. The closest I've come is an 8 3/8" M27 shooting heavy 173 Keith loads at 1550 and a moderately loaded 8 3/8" M29 with 180s at about the same velocity. Weight is a few ounces difference, and muzzle pressures are different. Recoil feels very similar.

JR

[280PLUS]

"The most unpleasant repeating handgun I have ever fired bar none is the 18.5 ounce 396 .44 Special with factory Hogue grips and a grooved, exposed backstrap shooting heavy Keith loads, 250 grain bullet at 1150 FPS."

found this at the spreadsheet site and couldn't help but think of you...

:D

funny though, the lightweight .357 has about the same recoil velocities as the 396 but he feels the 396 is worse

interesting...

could you elaborate john?

m

[Gewehr98]

I thought my S&W 696 gave me a solid thump in the hand, then I saw what the lighter 396 did. I always thought the new 329 in .44 Magnum would kick hard, sure enough, the numbers say it does! Ouch! :what:

[John Ross]

280plus: "funny though, the lightweight .357 has about the same recoil velocities as the 396 but he feels the 396 is worse

interesting...

could you elaborate john?"

I do not own a scandium .38 or .357 and only fired Leroy Thompson's 360 one cylinder one afternoon. I can't remember what the load was (though it *was* .357). I think it was Federal 125 but I'm not sure. I also recall he had grips on it that covered the backstrap.

I do not know exactly what ballistics we were getting with a 2" barrel. I have chronographed a lot of .357s, but only in 8 3/8" barrels. Someone send me real .38 and .357 data out of 2" barrels and I'll add it. My table may be optimistic.

The 396 is mine and I shot the Keith loads after over 200 rounds of full-house magnums through the 329. My hands may have been a little tender. In any event, it was pretty awful. I think Sorbothane grips from the .500 will make it acceptable.

JR

[Tamara]

John is obviously more fearless than me. :)

My 296 has only seen 200gr factory loads from Winchester, CCI/Speer, and Federal. Even with those, it's, well... not exactly "brutal", but nothing I'd want to run a few hundred rounds through at a sitting, if you know what I mean. That grooved backstrap starts to tattoo you pretty good after four or five cylinders. :uhoh:

My Bulldog Pug weighed about the same, and I shot it to death in a few range trips with PMC 240gr loads. The lack of the groove in the backstrap makes a big difference in shooting comfort.

[280PLUS]

i just saw one a little while back and it was sooo tempting, but i prefer the hammerless 296 like yours (tamara)

i also noted that the 500 mag appears milder than the 2 lightweights (.44 spec and .357) on the charts

did you get a chance to shoot that one john?

as far as the ti/scan .357, the one i shot was brutal (worst i ever shot, personally) but the rep did say he gave me the hottest rounds around, i shot a box of .38 +P through it first and it wasn't too bad

i don't recall what brand they were or anything, unfortunately

i'm also curious how the ti/scan .44 mag would come out on this chart

i kinda like that one too,,,

:evil:

oh, duh, i see its there, great! i gotta try that one too!!

it doesnt look bad at all...

:D

[John Ross]

280plus: "i also noted that the 500 mag appears milder than the 2 lightweights (.44 spec and .357) on the charts
did you get a chance to shoot that one john?"

Yes, I have a 500 that came 6/17, my birthday(!) The only mold I have is a custom one that casts 625 grain bullets.

I decided to try a bullet this heavy because S&W made the cylinder so long, at 2.300" non-recessed. You can have a nose length of .700". To make a lead bullet with this nose length, it needs to weigh over 450 grains or so to have enough shank *inside* the case.

The .500 S&W is a .500 Linebaugh Long that is .010" smaller diameter, both bullet and case. The difference is the Ruger Maximum frames Linebaugh has available on which to build his guns permit a cylinder length of 1.95" or thereabouts and thus a cartridge OAL of a bit less. An extra quarter-inch of powder space in a straight case .500" in diameter is a LOT (10-12 grains).

Linebaugh says 625 grains is too heavy but I don't think he realizes we've got a .300" more cylinder to play with than he does. I want to explore the potential of this cartridge, and that will require heavy bullets for the reasons listed above. Notice that the COR-BON loading data shows OAL with the 440 grain bullet of 1.995". They are giving up about 10 grains(15%) of their case capacity vs if the bullet had a longer nose and could be loaded to 2.21" OAL.

Go to the gun section of my website and there's a link to a pic of this bullet and load. I have shot a couple hundred rounds using 26 grains WC680 and I think the velocity is between 1000 and 1100 FPS. I hope to do some chronographing tomorrow, as well as up the load a bit.

My 625 is actually the "Mark 1" version with a .625" nose length, designed before I got the gun when I thought the cylinder was 2.250" long. When I measured the gun it was 2.300" and the cases are 1.615" or less, and shorten with crimping. I have a "Mark II" 625 mold with a .700" nose coming in a week or two, as well as a 450 grain one also with a .700 nose length. I think I'll be able to get over 1300 with the new 625 and 1800 with the 450 at safe pressures, loaded to 2.295" OAL.

I absolutely LOVE this gun. Haven't been as excited about a handgun since I got my first Model 29 when I was 14.

JR

[280PLUS]

wow, youve obviously been doing some homework, its a little over my head but i get the gist. i know 625 grains is a pretty large bullet, thats for sure.

i went up to s&w to test it out but they werent letting anyone shoot it:mad:

from the looks of things im believing it can be managed with one hand.

have you tried it?

i'm getting the itch to head up there again...

:D

6/22 - i just reread it and i understood a lot more of what youre getting at the second time through

i'd like to do some research on the .32 h+r mag in terms of how much more a round can be pushed out of this gun (332- ti/scan) vs older .32 mags. if it can be pushed up at all

but i've never reloaded a thing in my life so i may contact you in the future to discuss it with you if you don't mind?

m

[280PLUS]

hope you don't mind john...

:D

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=339663

can you say... :what:

[George Hill]

I think one of the factors that make felt recoil harsher or softer is the Time/Acceleration factor. Shorter barrel gives less time to accelerate the bullet so the recoil feels sharper. You can try shooting the same gun with different barrel lengths and you will see what I mean. Shorter barrels also produce more flash and thusly make you think your getting a lot more bang out of the same cartridge load. Sharper recoil pulse + Flash = the mind saying *Ouch* even if that is not really the case. The weight of the weapon can help some... but that is not always the case in handguns. A big heavy Stainless mountian revolver can feel like it has more recoil to some people than a lighter framed gun with a longer barrel. Mental thing.
Same thing that causes flinching. It's all in the mind.










There is no spoon.

[Tamara]

Not so much of it is "psychological" as it is that there are many factors that can ameliorate or enhance felt recoil.

Grip shape and composition, backstrap shape and area, height of bore axis above hand, porting or muzzle brakes, grip and technique, et cetera, ad nauseum...

Plus, sorta like what you pointed out, there's the comfort and familiarity factor. With my little 3" 629, I can shoot standard magnum loads like 240gr MagTech or Winchester White Box 'til the cows come home, while a friend was done after only half a cylinder the other weekend. Why? I shoot it a lot; I'm used to it. If I'm shooting two-handed, I lean into the recoil, and if I'm shooting one handed, I roll with it. He had no real experience with the gun, and so the "kick" and muzzleblast unnerved him.

[280PLUS]

is or was there a muzzle brake on his 500?

i know what you mean tamara, if youre not used to shooting the big calibers it can be a little unnerving the first time you pop one off

but if you stick with it...

:D

[twoblink]

One of the things I tell newbies is that;

There is:

#1) Recoil (The Math)

#2) Recoil (What you feel)

changing the grips on a gun doesn't change the math part, but boy, does it change the what you feel part! :D

Nice spreadsheet though, interestin..

[bogie]

Heh - Plugged in the numbers for 10.5 and 13.5 class 6PPC and .22PPC rifles - Looks interesting, in regards to the rifles riding the bags well... (a pretty fair factor in benchrest competition).

Thanks, John - I'm gonna post a link over at Benchrest Central...