low recoiling factory ammo

This may not be an option for you, but you may want to consider reloading. With reloading you can customize your loads and have far better consistency compared to factory ammo. To find out if reloading is or is not for you, check with some of your shooting friends. Chance is one or more of them reload. Buy your own powder, and bullets, primers. I'm pretty sure at least one of them would allow you to reload on their press. I have done this with a number of shooting friends that now are also into reloading. Most of us find the same amount of enjoyment with reloading as we do shooting.

Load Master said:

This may not be an option for you, but you may want to consider reloading. With reloading you can customize your loads and have far better consistency compared to factory ammo. To find out if reloading is or is not for you, check with some of your shooting friends. Chance is one or more of them reload. Buy your own powder, and bullets, primers. I'm pretty sure at least one of them would allow you to reload on their press. I have done this with a number of shooting friends that now are also into reloading. Most of us find the same amount of enjoyment with reloading as we do shooting.

Click to expand...

I"m with you. In fact, I'm sure if springfield2 lets folks know where he or she is, I bet they'd find someone here who would do exactly what you suggest.

I know, while I'm fairly new to re/handloading I'd be willing to help someone see if they were interested by helping them load some rounds.

Inconsistent recoil and ballistics seem common these days as we shoot ammunition from high production rate/political panic days.
All I can suggest is to try different brands. A friend who does not reload is happy with Federal Aluminum. Another says Freedom Munitions is good.

Me? I load my own.

wolf and perfecta seem light. not sure about about 9mm, but wolf 45 acp clocks about 15% slower, and and much lighter.

My shooting buddies are very happy with winchester white box 115 grain FMJ in 9mm. Mild recoil, reliable in several pistols, and accurate enough for action pistol disciplines. I have not shot it personally, but I have watched others shoot an awful lot of the stuff.

Look for something sub-sonic. Most of the 147 grain 9mm are sub-sonic anyway. There is also some practice ammo by Winchester that is supposed to be low-recoil, W-Train. It's right at 950 fps anyway...

I have never shot their 9mm but the .40 minor power factor rounds were nice before I started reloading my own.
https://atlantaarms.com/products/9mm-115-gr-fmj-elite-steel-challenge.html

Berger.Fan222 said:

My shooting buddies are very happy with winchester white box 115 grain FMJ in 9mm. Mild recoil, reliable in several pistols, and accurate enough for action pistol disciplines. I have not shot it personally, but I have watched others shoot an awful lot of the stuff.

Click to expand...

WWB 115FMJ moves out at 1190fps, about the top-end of 115gr. non +P loads. I agree it's popular (sold at Wallyworld), but I throw away about 30% of the cases from it I pick up at the range due to malformed or double-punched flash holes. It's neither mild nor quality.

I would recommend CCI Blazer Brass in 115 grain. It's 1100fps from my 4" barrel, very consistent, clean-burning and about as mild a factory load I know of. You can buy either the 115 or 124 grain versions for 9.99/box, also making it compete for the cheapest 'real' 9mm ammunition you can buy.

Any 115 at the same velocity will have the same amount of recoil out of the same weight pistol. A 2 pound pistol will have about 1.4 ft-lbs. less recoil than a 1.5 pound pistol shooting the same ammo. You probably won't notice it though.
Remington UMC 9mm all runs at the same velocities. 1145 fps MV.
Prvi 115's run a bit faster at 1181 fps. That's have a tick more recoil, but you probably won't notice it either.

Sunray said:

Any 115 at the same velocity will have the same amount of recoil out of the same weight pistol. A 2 pound pistol will have about 1.4 ft-lbs. less recoil than a 1.5 pound pistol shooting the same ammo. You probably won't notice it though..

Click to expand...

This is a bit of an over-simplification as it ignores time. A fast-burning powder like Tightgroup can still feel snappy at fairly low velocities because it creates most of its pressure with barely any bullet travel. A slower burning powder like BE-86 will spread its recoil impulse over a longer duration, lessening the peak recoil force encountered by the shooter for a given bullet velocity. Both loads may produce the same total recoil force when integrated over time, but the faster-burning powder will invariably result in a greater sensation of recoil due to the faster rise to peak pressure.

For cheap factory range ammo, CCI Blazer seems to feel more mild and consistent than others to me.

ray15 said:

This is a bit of an over-simplification as it ignores time. A fast-burning powder like Tightgroup can still feel snappy at fairly low velocities because it creates most of its pressure with barely any bullet travel. A slower burning powder like BE-86 will spread its recoil impulse over a longer duration, lessening the peak recoil force encountered by the shooter for a given bullet velocity. Both loads may produce the same total recoil force when integrated over time, but the faster-burning powder will invariably result in a greater sensation of recoil due to the faster rise to peak pressure.

Click to expand...

Nope. The faster burning powder will usually have a smaller charge weight. The charge weight counts in the recoil equation. Moreover, the smaller charge will produce a smaller total volume of gas. Part of recoil is the rocket-like expulsion of pressurized gas from the barrel... barring compensators or brakes, more gas=more recoil.

And that's why almost all target shooters will tend to run faster powders.

Here's some data/testing around this: http://www.shootingtimes.com/ballistics/measure-relative-handgun-recoil/

As for the time-factor, the differences in burn rate aren't perceptible to humans... and certainly not in a semi-auto, where the bullet is long gone from the barrel well before the slide hits home at the end of its rearward travel (when most of the recoil is finally transmitted to the frame and, though it, to the shooter).

ATLDave said:

And that's why almost all target shooters will tend to run faster powders.

Click to expand...

I would maintain they are actually targeting lower velocities, which are better served by faster powders. Downloading a slow powder to target velocities typically hurts accuracy at the same time it increases fouling, both undesirable in a target scenario.

ATLDave said:

Here's some data/testing around this: http://www.shootingtimes.com/ballistics/measure-relative-handgun-recoil/

Click to expand...

This testing doesn't actually test the factor I referenced, which is the delivery rate of the recoil. It is measuring total recoil force as evidenced by rest displacement. In my hypothetical example, the total recoil force was equal, and therefore unable to be differentiated by this testing methodology. And although all-else is never equal in reality, a faster powder can change the relationship between peak recoil acceleration and total recoil force. In a more realistic scenario the faster burning powder hits pressure limits before an equal velocity can be achieved.

ATLDave said:

As for the time-factor, the differences in burn rate aren't perceptible to humans... and certainly not in a semi-auto, where the bullet is long gone from the barrel well before the slide hits home at the end of its rearward travel (when most of the recoil is finally transmitted to the frame and, though it, to the shooter).

Click to expand...

The time itself does not have to be perceived by the shooter, only its effect on the delivery rate of the recoil force. Spreading a given total amount of force over a longer duration lowers the peak acceleration generated, which can affect the shooter's perception of recoil as well as the total force generated.

There was a brisk debate on the subject when I was shooting a lot of ATA trap.
The theory was that a "slow" - highly progressive - powder would kick less because of lower acceleration of the shot charge. I tried it and could not tell a difference, but then I am not The Princess And The Pea.
Interestingly, that was the American theory. The European theory was to use a "fast" powder to reduce the mass of ejecta by a bit.

ray15 said:

It is measuring total recoil force as evidenced by rest displacement. In my hypothetical example, the total recoil force was equal, and therefore unable to be differentiated by this testing methodology.

Click to expand...

You missed the point. At the same momentum, the faster powder produces less absolute recoil. Faster powder/smaller charge for the same momentum (at least in handguns) = less actual recoil.

ray15 said:

The time itself does not have to be perceived by the shooter, only its effect on the delivery rate of the recoil force. Spreading a given total amount of force over a longer duration lowers the peak acceleration generated, which can affect the shooter's perception of recoil as well as the total force generated.

Click to expand...

If the shooter cannot perceive any difference in the recoil, then how can the shooter's perception of recoil be different?

Let's get specific. Tell me how long, in defined units of time, it takes for a fast pistol powder versus a medium-slow pistol powder to finish burning. And then let's discuss how much the slide has moved in that time.

ATLDave said:

You missed the point. At the same momentum, the faster powder produces less absolute recoil. Faster powder/smaller charge for the same momentum (at least in handguns) = less actual recoil.

Click to expand...

I would maintain you've missed my point - there is more at work here than total (not absolute) recoil force. The delivery of that force matters.

ATLDave said:

If the shooter cannot perceive any difference in the recoil, then how can the shooter's perception of recoil be different?

Click to expand...

Since that makes no sense, I'll assume you meant "If the shooter cannot perceive any difference in the time". This principle is easy to illustrate. Suppose you drop a safe on someone. Due to the fact that the safe is not deflected by the person, it does not slow much as it compresses them to the ground, transmitting all its impact force over a very short period of time. Now consider dropping an entity of equal mass but constructed much more lightly. As it impacts the person, it deforms to a greater degree and therefore transmits a lesser peak force. The person doesn't have to be able to recognize the longer period of time over which the deceleration occurs for the difference in force to substantial. This is the also the principle by which modern crash safety standards are met in automobiles - the structure of the car bends more easily, extending the event. You don't have to be able to notice the increased time it takes for the force to be transmitted to your body for the resultant decrease in force transmitted to save your life.

ATLDave said:

Let's get specific. Tell me how long, in defined units of time, it takes for a fast pistol powder versus a medium-slow pistol powder to finish burning. And then let's discuss how much the slide has moved in that time.

Click to expand...

There's no guarantee either powder burns 'completely'. It's more instructive to look at the chamber pressure when the bullet reaches the end of the barrel. For a 115gr. 9mm, a 4.4gr. charge of Tightgroup produces ~1112fps/34,000psi and a chamber pressue of ~3,800psi as the bullet reaches the end of a 4" barrel. For Power Pistol, it takes 6gr. of powder to reach the same velocity, producing ~1121fps/24,000psi but ~5,600psi of chamber pressure still exists as the bullet leaves the barrel. At ~.14ms, the Power Pistol load makes ~30% less pressure, but at .5ms it's producing ~47% more pressure. The rate the TG load builds pressure, as well as the higher pressure generated makes it feel snappier, even if the total recoil force is greater with the PP load.

ray15 said:

It's more instructive to look at the chamber pressure when the bullet reaches the end of the barrel. For a 115gr. 9mm, a 4.4gr. charge of Tightgroup produces ~1112fps/34,000psi and a chamber pressue of ~3,800psi as the bullet reaches the end of a 4" barrel. For Power Pistol, it takes 6gr. of powder to reach the same velocity, producing ~1121fps/24,000psi but ~5,600psi of chamber pressure still exists as the bullet leaves the barrel. At ~.14ms, the Power Pistol load makes ~30% less pressure, but at .5ms it's producing ~47% more pressure. The rate the TG load builds pressure, as well as the higher pressure generated makes it feel snappier, even if the total recoil force is greater with the PP load.

Click to expand...

1. By what mechanism is the feeling of pressure in the barrel while the bullet is still internal transmitted to the shooter?

2. You have identified a relevant piece of information: pressure at bullet-barrel exit. The slower powder has a higher pressure at bullet exit. All that pressure vents to the atmosphere very rapidly as the bullet unseals the end of the barrel (like a cork popping). That extra force is what causes slower powders to recoil MORE than fast powders (at the same momentum). Notwithstanding your claim that people can feel the difference in recoil during the ms's that the bullet is traversing the barrel, the fact remains that the slower powder actually recoils more. By a measurable amount for simple, Newtonian-physics reasons.

3. How far has the slide traveled to the rear on a typical Browning-action pistol at bullet-barrel exit? What fraction of the recoil force has been transmitted to the frame at that point?

Just to help things along, here's a video of a 1911 being fired in slow motion:



If you go to 0:10, you will get to see the useful footage. You will notice a couple of things. First, the slide moves less than half an inch to the rear by the time the bullet exits the barrel. Second, the frame moves even less - virtually not at all - because the recoil forces are acting on the slide and barrel assembly; only the resistance of the recoil spring and the small drag/friction between the slide/frame rails is transmitting any force to the frame at all.

This video is slowed down less, but shows the recoil cycle uninterupted.

If you watch closely (and you may want to slow down the video further by changing the youtube settings to play at .25 speed), you will see that the majority of frame acceleration - i.e., recoil to the shooter - occurs when the slide slams into the frame at the rear of its travel. At that point the momentum of the slide and barrel get substantially transferred to the frame, and via the frame to the shooter. Prior to that, it is only via the compressing spring that the first hints of recoil are passed along to the frame/shooter.

Now, in light of the foregoing, in what possible way can the shooter feel/perceive the difference in pressure when the bullet is, say, 2" down the barrel? They cannot. There is no mechanism by which they can detect/feel any difference whatsoever. They can feel slide velocity when it slams to the rear. They can perceive blast/flash when the bullet "uncorks" the barrel. But until then, there's really nothing interacting with the shooter.

This is, obviously, a bit different with a revolver or a break-action shotgun, where the gun is rigid. I think it makes no practical difference, but I can at least imagine a way where an infinitely-sensitive shooter might theoretically be able to tell some difference in the "impulse" as hypothesized above. But there is no dang way that is a factor in a semi-automatic gun. None. Zero.

And that just leaves the fact that smaller charges of faster powder will objectively recoil less, in a way that can be measured by a machine and predicted by physics mathematics.

springfield2 said:

HI,wondering if anyone knows of any factory ammo that has low recoil?I would be using it for idpa.I have shot umc 115gr for about 5 years but over the last year i have had problems with inconsistent recoil.sometimes soft and other times a lot of recoil.Has anyone tried freedom munitions,ppu or other ammo that would have consistent recoil?

Click to expand...

I shot factory ammunition for USPSA matches before reloading.

What you will find with factory ammunition, especially lower priced/velocity/recoil "target" ammunition, is that manufacturers use the cheapest powders available at lowest powder charges so that sometimes they may not even reliably cycle the slides of new pistols with stiffer recoil springs. So depending on lot numbers, performance and consistency may vary quite a bit.

Another issue I have seen is accuracy, which is crucial for match shooting. For me back then in the 90's, PMC produced better accuracy out of several factory ammunition I have tested. In recent years, I have tested several factory ammunition for some reloading comparison threads in the Handloading and Reloading category, including Federal/Winchester white box, UMC, S&B, Wolf, etc. and accuracy from Wolf was not impressive and recoil inconsistent and definitely would not use it for match shooting.

As you posted, another consideration for me was double tap timing. More consistent ammunition provided more consistent recoil "tap tap" where front sight returned to POA faster which produced faster stage times essential for USPSA scoring. Reloading not only improved accuracy by 40% over most accurate factory loads, it also allowed for me to try different powders and charges for more consistent recoil loads that produced faster double taps.

You read members posting different recoil experiences with same brand ammunition. Unless people also post lot numbers of factory ammunition, the different lot number of same brand ammunition you buy may not perform the same in your pistol. So ultimately, you may need to buy several different brand factory ammunition and see how well they shoot in your pistol. Once you find the ammunition that works well, make note of the lot number and buy the same lot ammunition.

Jim Watson said:

The theory was that a "slow" - highly progressive - powder would kick less because of lower acceleration of the shot charge. I tried it and could not tell a difference, but then I am not The Princess And The Pea.
Interestingly, that was the American theory. The European theory was to use a "fast" powder to reduce the mass of ejecta by a bit.

Click to expand...

I don't want to hijack the thread anymore but will add this to recoil discussion.

Keep in mind OP is shooting IDPA.

For lighter target loads meeting IDPA power factor, slower powders will often burn ineffectively and produce more inconsistent recoil/less accurate loads even though slower powders will produce less snappy felt recoil at near max/max load data. This is mainly why faster powders are used for match shooting. Match shooters want loads that will meet power factor AND produce good enough accuracy (For action pistol matches, we do not need bullseye match level of accuracy). And more consistent powder burn will produce more consistent chamber pressures which will produce more consistent recoil for faster double taps.

springfield2 said:

idpa ... I have shot umc 115gr for about 5 years but over the last year i have had problems with inconsistent recoil.sometimes soft and other times a lot of recoil.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that not all factory ammunition will meet power factor requirements.

For IDPA, many shooters may not shoot 5" match barrels and will get slower velocities out of shorter 4"-4.5" barrels - http://forums.brianenos.com/index.php?/topic/218809-what-factory-9mm-ammo-meets-pf/