Does a faster burning powder create greater recoil?

Faster powder produces a sharper recoil impulse. Basically all the recoil happening in a shorter period of time. A fast punch as opposed to a slower push.

I can't think of any reason why it would unless you need to use more of the faster burning powder. My experience is with rifle ammo instead of pistol ammo, but the same rules apply. Recoil is calculated by using 4 factors and I've never seen anything related to how fast the powder burns.

Weight of projectile
Muzzle velocity of projectile
Weight of the firearm
Weight of the powder charge

The one people often don't think about is the weight of the powder charge. If you are using a powder that allows you to achieve the same velocity using less powder then you'll see less recoil. This can be noticeable in rifles, not sure it would really show up with the small amount of powder used in handguns.

A faster burning powder doesn't necessarily mean faster muzzle velocity. Generally heavier bullets require slower burning powder and lighter bullets work better with faster powders.

Recoil velocity is not exactly the same as actual recoil. But generally speaking a heavier bullet moving at slower speed will recoil slower. The actual recoil in ft/lbs may be exactly the same, but most people feel that slower recoil is more comfortable.

In the same line of thought from jmr40's post. His four principles are correct.

IF you shoot two loads out of the same gun with the same bullet at the same velocity, the combo using the least(aka fastest) powder will have the least recoil. The one with the most(aka slowest) powder will have the most recoil. There are those that say they feel the fast powder load having sharp recoil and the slow powder load feeling like a push. I'm not that sensitive with the pistol rounds I shoot.

To be certain you have lower recoiling rounds use a fast burning powder and reduce the powder charge to reduce your muzzle velocity.

The general rules for gunpowder and recoil are along the lines that jmr40 wrote.

Generally, faster powders require less powder weight to push the same bullet to the same speed. Less powder weight means less gas and gas pressure, so they produce less recoil force. That was demonstrated in a handgun at this link: https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/measure-relative-handgun-recoil/99442

For recoil that feels 'softer', the general rule is a heavy bullet driven by a small charge of a fast powder. The recoil of different bullet weights feels different, and it is generally attributed to the light bullets having to accelerate faster to reach their typical speeds, producing a 'snappy' feel, while heavy bullets accelerate slower because their usual speed is slower producing more of a 'push' feel.

147 and 158 grain bullets feel mighty soft in the 9mm compared to 115 and 124 bullets.

You do notice different felt recoil levels in lightweight 44 mag revolvers.

I didn’t articulate it in my first post but just because felt recoil is less does not mean it is actually less recoil in terms of actual energy back into the shooter.

IME, faster powders will be snappier, as they say.

I've always thought the sooner a given load develops peak pressure, the sharper the recoil will seem, all other variables being equal.

No. The faster powder loaded to the same bullet velocity will almost always produce LESS recoil. That’s because the powder charge turns into gas. And that gas has a lot of velocity coming out of the barrel.

If you don’t have a compensator/brake redirecting that gas, it comes out of the muzzle like a rocket jet and drives the gun backwards. The less powder you have, the less of that rocket effect you get. Faster powders that have smaller charges equal LESS recoil.

There’s also a small variable for the velocity of the gas itself. Gasses from powders with high nitroglycerin content will have higher velocity than gasses from single base powders. I suspect this is why N320 shoots “softer” even than Titegroup, which has small powder charges but a pretty high NG content.

I would say it depends. There is the physics to consider. Total recoil impulse is generated by mass of ejecta and velocity of same. This would indicate, as posted above, velocity and bullet mass being equal, a heavier powder charge will generate more total recoil.

Then there is the subjective and other class, influenced by caliber, barrel length, firearm weight, firearm fit, action type, and other factors that are not well understood such as gas velocity and dampening in the action mechanism itself and how recoil is perceived by the shooter. One can find a load for example with a very light charge of fast burning powder that will achieve same velocity with noticeably less felt recoil in a blowback operated handgun. The opposite effect can be noticed with a slower powder at same velocity in a different action mechanism such as the Browning HP. This is all subjective. I can absolutely say, after many thousands of rounds on the trap and skeet field, a heavier charge of WSH definately shoots "softer" vs a significantly lighter charge of Red Dot, Clays, or WST pushing the same 1 1/8 oz of shot at the same 1150fps.

Faster powder, less recoil.

Back when I was shooting ATA Trap, there was a powder vs recoil debate.
The European system was Newtonian; a light charge of fast powder produces less "jet effect."
The American Fad was to medium burn powders for more gradual acceleration even though the total ejecta mass was a bit greater.
Yawn.
I have not the sensitivity of The Princess and The Pea and could not tell a difference. And if I thought about recoil too much I missed the target.
Random8 says he can tell, I can't.

I recall a poster who said Reloder 19 gave perceptibly less recoil in his 7mm RM rifle than other powder giving the same velocity.

I have not compared N320 to Titegroup in pistol ammo; I just throw in some HP38 and go shooting.

CANNONMAN said:

I posted wanting to load some "soft" 9mm and there was some interesting talk about recoil. I began to wonder if you have two loads that travel at the same velocity but one powder is much faster than the other, will the faster powder create more recoil? No idea where this post will go but the 9mm, 45 ACP and subsonic 300BO are the loads that interest me.

Click to expand...

As your intent is for "soft" loads, I doubt that difference in recoil will be even noticeable. Plus, with "soft" loads being the intent, one would most likely not even attempt to use a much "slower" powder to achieve the same velocities. I would worry more about which powder gives me the better accuracy. If you were going with max or +p loads, then differences in recoil may be a concern, because the use of slower powders is more likely.

jmr40 said:

Weight of projectile
Muzzle velocity of projectile
Weight of the firearm
Weight of the powder charge

Click to expand...

^^^This^^^
The weight and burn rate of the powder being the factor with the least influence on recoil.

Something else to consider. The OP wants "soft" ammo. I achieve that mostly by reducing the load, reducing the velocity. When you take it to the extreme with the lightest load that will cycle an automatic, those medium powders get erratic and fast burners are more consistent. I load 9mm and .38 with HP38 as I have for many years, but when I started cutting back the .45 to spare my arthritis, I went to Bullseye for less variation in velocity at the 700 fps level.

For gun games using non compensated pistols the general consensus is using a heavy bullet with fast powder is a “softer” shooting load, loaded to the same power factor. In games where there is no power factor, one can load light bullets to speeds that will just exit the barrel and they will shoot even softer.

The softest load I have for 9mm that always makes 130 PF is 3.1 of N310 with a plated 147 @ 1.160”

or 3.2 of N320/Titegroup same everything else are close as well.

jmorris said:

For gun games using non compensated pistols the general consensus is using a heavy bullet with fast powder is a “softer” shooting load, loaded to the same power factor. In games where there is no power factor, one can load light bullets to speeds that will just exit the barrel and they will shoot even softer.

The softest load I have for 9mm that always makes 130 PF is 3.1 of N310 with a plated 147 @ 1.160”

or 3.2 of N320/Titegroup same everything else are close as well.

Click to expand...

Exactly. My go to for light shooting load has been 3.2gr of TG under a 147gr HiTek coated for many years now. Runs right at 980 fps. The recoil is so light, that if you limp wrist the gun, you can induce a malfunction.

Speer once built a single shot "cylinder" with pressure transducer for a real revolver. They found that maximum pressure was about when the bullet was crossing the cylinder-barrel gap.

Interesting topic. So I will ask the stupid question...... Why not always use the faster powder if you can achieve the speed you seek and benefit from less recoil? Pete

Something I've been wondering lately may be relevant in regards to the OP.

Let's compare two loads with the same bullet, and the same muzzle velocity. One uses a faster powder, which reaches peak pressure more quickly and jump starts the bullet into a higher velocity in the barrel but then burns up quickly and stops creating additional pressure. The other load uses a slower powder, which reaches a lower peak pressure and later, but continues to push the bullet into increased acceleration in a more meaningful way throughout its entire travel down the barrel.

Would that potentially mean that from the instant the primer is struck, the load with the faster powder actually gets the bullet from the case to the muzzle slightly before the slower burning powder does? They both leave the barrel at the same speed, but do they leave it at the same time?

And if this time is less with the faster burning powder, does that mean a sharper recoil impulse?

peterk1234, for me sometimes I want a propellant that will afford more case fill for better ignition or a longer burn to take advantage of a longer barrel giving more velocity. Also a smaller charge might be more susceptible to a overcharge or double charge. I err to safety as default.

So I will ask the stupid question...... Why not always use the faster powder if you can achieve the speed you seek and benefit from less recoil?

Click to expand...

Not a stupid question.

In 9mm for example .5gr of powder is not going to make a big difference in recoil.
For example 1.5lb gun, 124gr bullet, 1050fps
4gr =4.77 ft lb recoil
4.5gr =4.93 ft lb recoil
5.0 gr = 5.09 ft lb recoil
not a lot of difference

So why use a slower powder for the same vel?
Some possible reasons
1. You have it already
2. Some people prefer the recoil feel of the slower powder. (I do)
3. More leeway charge wise, .1 gr charge diff of a slower powder is less likely to push you over the edge than say .1 gr more of say Titegroup
4. It may be more accurate than a faster powder in your gun (or it may not)
5. Possibly less pressure than a faster powder for the same vel