270 vs. 243 recoil


PDA






sixshooterfan
January 1, 2009, 02:35 PM
I have a Remington 700BDL in .270. It's got a hard plastic butt plate. I don't want to modify this rifle from its stock configuration. It was my first rifle and a gift from my Dad, and it will be spending most of its time in the safe or over the mantel (next to my Dad's matching (but left handed) 25 year old 700BDL in the same chambering).

In this configuration (no recoil pad), the standard 150's are pushing what I feel to be what I can handle in terms of recoil. How much of a reduction in recoil would a good limbsaver pad on the same rifle offer? How would it compare to a .243 without a pad? A .243 with a pad? After two or three boxes of ammo at the bench, I start getting a bit of a flinch and I really want to avoid that.

I've seen Chuck Hawk's numerical table, so I'm just looking for a narrative description from people who own/have shot both.

If you enjoyed reading about "270 vs. 243 recoil" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jpwilly
January 1, 2009, 03:10 PM
Get a slip on recoil pad and go shoot it. The 270 with 150gr bullets feels the same as a 30-06. The 243 has a much lighter recoil.

Recoil Calculator HERE (http://www.handloads.com/calc/recoil.asp)

akodo
January 1, 2009, 03:22 PM
if you are shooting off a bench, I suggest you grab some of Remington's 'managed recoil' loadings for the 270 winchester. Nothing wrong with using them for paper punching or hunting deer, antelope, bighorn sheep, whatever.

If you step up to hunting elk, i'd go with standard loads, but then, you'll probably only shoot those a few times to dial in the scope so use one of thse strap on to your shoulder recoil pads for the rangework only, and then firing it twice in the woods isn't going to cause much of an issue.

woof
January 1, 2009, 03:36 PM
.270 with recoil pad will still be substantially more recoil than a .243. I agree with managed recoil ammo. I have found it to be very accurate and often perform better on deer size game. Add the recoil pad as well.

Water-Man
January 1, 2009, 04:21 PM
.243 is almost half the recoil of a .270.

bullseye308
January 1, 2009, 05:44 PM
In the Hodgdon's 2009 reloading annual manual on shelves now is an article on Moderate Effective Loads(MELs) starting on page 58. If you reload you can bring the recoil level down to a "pleasant" level and still be as efective. If you don't reload, take the book to someone who does and show them the article and see if they will hook you up.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
January 1, 2009, 05:48 PM
twice as much as that of the .243

However, there are numerous variables, not limited to but including bullet weight, type of load (light, medium, heavy), weight of guns, thickness and shock-absorbing capabilities of any recoil pads and how well the gun fits (or does not fit) the shooter (length of pull).

nopardaid
January 1, 2009, 10:25 PM
I can't speak for all recoil pads but my Savage 111 30-06 using 180gr with a "P.A.D." (personal anti-recoil device, I think) is easier than shooting a .243, it is absurdly easy to shoot.

tango2echo
January 1, 2009, 10:34 PM
My 67 year old mother often shot my .243 at the range. Very light recoil even with 100gr bullets. The .270 is about twice as much, but still VERY light. I do not agree with .270 recoil being the same as an 30-06 in the same weight rifle. I THINK a .243 has something like 12ftlbs of recoil, a .270 is something like 25ftlbs, and and 30-06 starts around 38ftlbs. Thats from memory and not verified.

I've had good success with managed recoil ammo as well, and it groups well from the rifles I've tried it in.

Adding the recoil pad should be easy and simple and you can return the rifle to original condition by removing two screws.

T2E

hank327
January 1, 2009, 11:34 PM
I do not agree with .270 recoil being the same as an 30-06 in the same weight rifle.

If the .270 & 30.06 both weigh the same, say 9 lbs and fire the same weight bullet, say 150 grains, the felt recoil will be the same.

John828
January 2, 2009, 12:55 AM
funny, real funny...

All things being equal, the 270 will push more. Louder, more recoil, more etc., just funny this ever came up.

rangerruck
January 2, 2009, 01:39 AM
the 243 feels about half , in my opinion. but if you dropped to 140 grains, that would feel lighter as well...

Lone Star
January 2, 2009, 01:57 AM
Are the .270 Managed Recoil loads with 115 grain bullets? Are they structured for deer and similar game? Anyone know the velocity?

I think this man wants to shoot his .270, but going though 2-3 boxes each time at the range will put more wear on a hunting rife barrel than needed.
As he learned, it is also not pleasant to the shoulder.

The logical solution is to buy a good .243 with a recoil pad already installed. Sako, Winchester, maybe CZ, offer these. I'm surprised that Remington cheaped out, but their M-700 is a rifle designed to be inexpensive to produce.
Remington caters primarily to the hunter with a less expensive rifle in mind. So does Savage, but I gather that Savage may offer more for the money.

I've seen quite a few M-700's with bolt handles that had turned plum colored.
Still, if the shooter likes Remingtons, adding a recoil pad (if not original equipment) may solve his problem. A .243 with Nosler Partition bullets should kill most animals under elk or bear size, and might just tag those, too, if well shot by an expert marksman at reasonable range. A friend of mine has had great luck on whitetails with his .243.

Lone Star

bmars
January 2, 2009, 07:44 AM
Safe to assume that .260 is somewhere in between .270 and .243, but closer to .270? I never have been very good at math . . . or foot-pounds. :)

Bear70
February 7, 2009, 10:40 PM
Cartridge (Wb@MV) Rifle Weight Recoil energy Recoil velocity
.17 HMR (17 at 2550) 7.5 0.2 n/a
.204 Ruger (33 at 4225) 8.5 2.6 4.4
.22 LR (40 at 1165) 4.0 0.2 n/a
.22 WMR (40 at 1910) 6.75 0.4 n/a
.22 Hornet (45 at 2800) 7.5 1.3 3.3
.222 Rem. (50 at 3200) 7.5 3.0 5.1
.223 Rem. (55 at 3200) 8.0 3.2 5.1
.223 Rem. (62 at 3025) 7.0 3.9 6.0
.22-250 Rem. (55 at 3600) 8.5 4.7 6.0
.220 Swift (55 at 3800) 8.5 5.3 6.4
.223 WSSM (55 at 3850) 7.5 6.4 7.4
.243 Win. (75 at 3400) 8.5 7.2 7.4
.243 Win. (100 at 2960) 7.5 8.8 8.7
6mm Rem. (100 at 3100) 8.0 10.0 9.0
.243 WSSM (100 at 3100) 7.5 10.1 9.3
.240 Wby. Mag. (100 at 3406) 8.0 17.9 n/a
.25-35 Win. (117 at 2230) 6.5 7.0 8.3
.250 Savage (100 at 2900) 7.5 7.8 8.2
.257 Roberts (120 at 2800) 8.0 10.7 9.3
.25 WSSM (120 at 2990) 7.25 13.8 11.1
.25-06 Rem. (120 at 3000) 8.0 12.5 10.0
.257 Wby. Mag. (120 at 3300) 9.25 15.1 10.3
6.5x55 Swede (140 at 2650) 9.0 10.6 8.7
.260 Rem. (120 at 2860) 7.5 13.0 10.6
6.5mm-284 Norma (140 at 2920) 8.0 14.7 10.9
6.5mm Rem. Mag. (120 at 3100) 8.0 13.1 10.3
6.5x68 S (140 at 2990) 8.5 16.8 11.3
.264 Win. Mag. (140 at 3200) 8.5 19.2 12.1
6.8mm Rem. SPC (115 at 2625) 7.5 8.0 8.3
.270 Win. (130 at 3140) 8.0 16.5 n/a
.270 Win. (150 at 2900) 8.0 17.0 11.7
.270 WSM (150 at 3000) 8.0 18.9 12.3
.270 Wby. Mag. (150 at 3000) 9.25 17.8 11.1
7x57 Mauser (139 at 2800) 8.0 14.0 10.6
7mm-08 Rem. (140 at 2860) 8.0 12.6 10.1
7x64 (154 at 2850) 8.0 17.9 n/a
.280 Rem. (140 at 3000) 8.0 17.2 11.8
7mm Rem. SAUM (160 at 2931) 8.0 21.5 13.2
7mm WSM (160 at 3000) 8.0 21.9 13.3
7mm Rem. Mag. (150 at 3100) 8.5 19.2 12.1
7mm Wby. Mag. (140 at 3300) 9.25 19.5 11.7
7mm STW (160 at 3185) 8.5 27.9 14.6
7mm Ultra Mag. (160 at 3200) 8.5 29.4 n/a
.30 Carbine (110 at 1990) 7.0 3.5 5.7
.30-30 Win. (150 at 2400) 7.5 10.6 9.5
.30-30 Win. (170 at 2200) 7.5 11.0 9.7
.300 Sav. (150 at 2630) 7.5 14.8 n/a
.307 Win. (150 at 2600) 7.5 13.7 10.9
.308 Marlin Express (160 at 2660) 8.0 13.4 10.4
.308 Win. (150 at 2800) 7.5 15.8 11.7
.308 Win. (180 at 2610) 8.0 17.5 11.9
.30-06 Spfd. (150 at 2910) 8.0 17.6 11.9
.30-06 Spfd. (180 at 2700) 8.0 20.3 12.8
.300 Rem. SAUM (180 at 2960) 8.25 23.5 13.6
.300 WSM (180 at 2970) 8.25 23.8 13.6
.300 Win. Mag. (180 at 2960) 8.5 25.9 14.0
.300 Wby. Mag. (150 at 3400) 9.25 24.6 13.1
.300 Ultra Mag. (180 at 3230) 8.5 32.8 15.8
7.62x39 Soviet (125 at 2350) 7.0 6.9 8.0
7.62x54R Russian (174 at 2600) 9.0 15.0 10.4
.303 British (180 at 2420) 8.0 15.4 11.1
.32 Spec. (170 at 2250) 7.0 12.2 10.6
8x57 Mauser (170 at 2360) 8.0 12.9 n/a
.325 WSM (180 at 3060) 7.5 33.1 16.9
8x68 S (150 at 3300) 8.5 25.3 13.9
8mm Rem. Mag. (200 at 2900) 8.5 32.9 15.8
.338 Marlin Express (200 at 2400) 8.0 16.2 11.4
.338-57 O'Connor (200 at 2400) 8.0 19.2 12.4
.338 Federal (210 at 2630) 8.0 21.9 13.3
.338-06 A-Square (250 at 2500) 8.5 28.2 14.6
.338 Win. Mag. (200 at 2950) 8.5 32.8 15.8
.338 Win. Mag. (250 at 2700) 9.0 33.1 15.4
.340 Wby. Mag. (200 at 3100) 10.0 29.6 13.8
.338 Ultra Mag (250 at 2860) 8.5 43.1 n/a
.357 Mag. (158 at 1650) 7.0 4.7 6.6
.35 Rem. (200 at 2050) 7.5 13.5 10.8
.358 Win. (200 at 2490) 8.0 20.9 13.0
.35 Whelen (200 at 2675) 8.0 22.6 13.5
.350 Rem. Mag. (200 at 2700) 8.5 22.3 13.0
9.3x62 (270 at 2550) 8.5 33.3 n/a
9.3x74R (286 at 2400) 8.25 34.3 16.6
.375 Ruger (270 at 2840) 9.0 41.3 17.2
.375 H&H Mag. (270 at 2690) 9.0 36.1 16.1
.375 Ultra Mag (300 at 2800) 8.75 53.2 n/a
.378 Wby. Mag. (300 at 2900) 10.25 71.1 n/a
.405 Win. (300 at 2200) 8.0 30.6 15.7
.416 Rem. Mag. (400 at 2400) 10.0 52.9 18.5
.416 Rigby (400 at 2400) 10.0 58.1 19.3
.44 Rem. Mag. (240 at 1760) 7.5 11.2 9.8
.444 Marlin (240 at 2400) 7.5 23.3 14.2
.45 Colt (255 at 1100) 8.0 4.0 5.6
.450 Marlin (350 at 2000) 7.0 37.2 18.5
.45-70 (300 at 1800) 7.0 23.9 14.8
.45-70 (405 at 1330) 7.5 18.7 12.7
.458 Win. Mag. (500 at 2100) 9.0 62.3 21.1
.458 Lott (500 at 2300) 10.0 70.4 21.3
.460 Wby. Mag. (500 at 2600) 11.25 99.6 n/a
.470 N.E. (500 at 2150) 11.0 69.3 20.1
.50 BMG (647 at 2710) 30.0 70.0 12.3

win71
February 7, 2009, 10:59 PM
In this configuration (no recoil pad), the standard 150's are pushing what I feel to be what I can handle in terms of recoil. How much of a reduction in recoil would a good limbsaver pad on the same rifle offer? How would it compare to a .243 without a pad?
If you are talking about felt recoil as in pain to your shoulder.
I am forced to use a Limbsaver slip on pad on a Win mod 95 in 405 Winchester. Especially shooting from a bench . My guess would be about a 50 % reduction in pain.

If you enjoyed reading about "270 vs. 243 recoil" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!