.308 Recoil?

Status
Not open for further replies.

BP Hunter

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
1,516
Location
WA
I am looking in the future in purchasing a semi-auto .308. I am choosing between the FNAR and the Springfield M1A. I am leaning more towards the M1A becuase of the iron sights. Reveiws show that the FNAR has an "inexistent" recoil.

For reference I will grade the recoils from 1 to 10, with 10 as the highest recoil. Example: Ruger 22/10 recoil - 1, AR15 in .223 recoil - 3, .270 Winchester bolt action rifle - 6, and 12 gauge slug in an smooth bore 18.5" barrel of a Remington 870 recoil - 8.5.

So for the Springfield M1A, how will you owners grade the recoil?

Thanks for your inputs.:)
 
For reference I will grade the recoils from 1 to 10, with 10 as the highest recoil. Example: Ruger 22/10 recoil - 1, AR15 in .223 recoil - 3, .270 Winchester bolt action rifle - 6, and 12 gauge slug in an smooth bore 18.5" barrel of a Remington 870 recoil - 8.5.

Guess that puts my .375 Ultra at about 27.3..........

Perceived recoil has a number of variables, but an M1A is not going to hit you as hard as the .270 sporter.
 
I don't have an M1A, but I do have both .308 and .270 bolt action rifles. The recoil of the .308 is no more than the .270, so given that the M1A should be heavier and is semi-auto, I would say the recoil rating would be less than the .270 bolt action.
 
M1A's are soft shooters, as are most of the .30 caliber military autos. The guns usually have some weight to them, and a properly designed stock (most modern hunting rifles have stocks that are to long). Some problems come in with "accessories" though, and that can change some things.

Recoil is what it is. Its more about what youre accustomed to, what you learned on, and how you were taught to shoot than anything else.

Shooting from a bench, and shooting from field positions also can make a big difference in your perception.

We learned on WWII era rifles, and from shooters of the time. If you properly mount and shoot the rifle, none of them are bad, even when shooting a lot of rounds in a tee shirt.

If you learned on an M16, or something similar, and especially if you shoot off a bench, then youre probably going to need to make some adjustments if you want to be comfortable.
 
.30 cal battle rifles are NOT soft shooters, and what we learned over 50 years of study is the average soldier is inhibited by them. Self loading actions improved the perception of recoil, but the entire changeover to intermediate calibers is based on recoil reduction, lighter weight, and the obvious compensation of increased ammo available to carry.

The lighter, light recoiling intermediate calibers can even let you adopt a "nose to the charging handle" cheek weld, which means acquiring a sight picture more quickly without concerns of a part of the gun striking the face - from high recoil forces.

The .30 cal may be a treat for some to shoot at a range on a sunny Saturday, but most studies of battle show it was no treat to shoot or carry around. Soldiers do NOT generally like to shoot them, and won't, to a significant degree. Because of that and other allied reasons, the .30's were surplused at the end of their useful life and replaced - with guns that have half the recoil. That's what is used in most armies worldwide by tens of millions of soldiers.

One individual shooter can like them all they want, but in general, they aren't. They are last century's weapon, and barely made it half way through.
 
For reference I will grade the recoils from 1 to 10, with 10 as the highest recoil. Example: Ruger 22/10 recoil - 1, AR15 in .223 recoil - 3, .270 Winchester bolt action rifle - 6, and 12 gauge slug in an smooth bore 18.5" barrel of a Remington 870 recoil - 8.5.

Using the above I would rate my M1A's at 6, my mil-surp bolt guns at 7+ and my AR10 at 4.5-5. You may notice a difference when shooting different ammo, 147/150gr nato vs 168/175 gr match.
 
M1A is a piece of cake to shoot... call it a 7... My FAL i a 6 (gotta love tuneable gas systems)...

Neither one is an AR15 recoil.... yes you will whack yourself in the nose if you nuzzle right up to it.

Plus big boom is part of the fun...
 
4-5 I'd put it just ahead of an AR-15. The M1 Garand and M14 / M1A is the "Cadillac" of semi auto battle rifles. They shoot "soft".

30 cal battle rifles are NOT soft shooters

Most aren't but we're talking specifically about the M1 and those are soft shooters.

and what we learned over 50 years of study is the average soldier is inhibited by them.

Under full auto fire yes...

Self loading actions improved the perception of recoil, but the entire changeover to intermediate calibers is based on recoil reduction, lighter weight, and the obvious compensation of increased ammo available to carry.

Agreed but all self loading actions aren't the same I've shot the G3 and it was harsh compared to the M1 and AR10's I've shot.

The lighter, light recoiling intermediate calibers can even let you adopt a "nose to the charging handle" cheek weld, which means acquiring a sight picture more quickly without concerns of a part of the gun striking the face - from high recoil forces.

I can shoot my M1 Garand all snuggled up. Wouldn't put my thumb under my nose with a K98 though.

The .30 cal may be a treat for some to shoot at a range on a sunny Saturday, but most studies of battle show it was no treat to shoot or carry around.

They are a little heavier

Soldiers do NOT generally like to shoot them, and won't, to a significant degree.

Soldiers shoot what they are issued.

Because of that and other allied reasons, the .30's were surplussed at the end of their useful life and replaced - with guns that have half the recoil. That's what is used in most armies worldwide by tens of millions of soldiers.

Politics, doctrine, logistics not soldiers made that change happen.

One individual shooter can like them all they want, but in general, they aren't. They are last century's weapon, and barely made it half way through.

The M14 is still battle ready and used today as a DMR. The AR is also last century's weapon system but used this century.
 
.30 cal battle rifles are NOT soft shooters...
Compared to some of the bolt guns, especially the lighter commercial guns, they are soft shooters. When properly shouldered, the recoil impulse is more of a firm push than a kick.

The lighter, light recoiling intermediate calibers can even let you adopt a "nose to the charging handle" cheek weld, which means acquiring a sight picture more quickly without concerns of a part of the gun striking the face - from high recoil forces.
With any of them, this is all just a matter of training and how to properly mount the gun being used. You dont shoulder and hold an M4 like you do a M14, and for obvious reasons, but when properly mounted, you get a very good, head down and forward cheek weld on the M14's (just like the M16's and AK's), and you know where to put your thumb. If you dont, you'll soon learn. :)

The .30 cal may be a treat for some to shoot at a range on a sunny Saturday, but most studies of battle show it was no treat to shoot or carry around.
I suppose times have changed, along with the guns, and the "average" USGI. Back when more were likely rural farm boys who worked hard from a young age and were fit, and all you had to learn on was pap's old '03 or Mauser, and the rifle you were issued was a M1 or M14, it was no big deal.

Give one of todays "average" GI's the same gun, and I can see where you would get complaints. XBox muscles are not quite the same as farm chore muscles. ;)

Soldiers do NOT generally like to shoot them, and won't, to a significant degree.
At this point, how many actually do get to shoot them? I would say a select few, simply because they are now looked upon as a specialty weapon.

Back when thats all there was, there wasnt a whole lot of choice. Then again, they were taught to properly shoot them too. That alone can make a big difference in your perception of the gun.



Dont misunderstand here, I dont believe the old .30 caliber guns should be brought back to replace anything either. Whats currently available is the better choice for 99% of what we have going on today. All I was saying is, the .30's arent the big bad "kickers" and as bad as some will tell you, if you learn to shoot them properly. We are now well past the point where the "lighter" generations now out number the "heavier" generations, and in some respects, things are reversed in that last line if you think about it. Recoil vs weight/fitness level of shooter has turned 180*.

With the state of general fitness of many/most Americans today, its no wonder you see most shooters sitting at a bench when they shoot. Lugging those rifles to the bench on a hot day is taxing. Everything that increases felt recoil is present right there at the bench, and may be some of what things are based on when it comes to it.

This isnt about one being better than the other, its just more about what you learned on and your perception of what happens when you pull the trigger. Those learning on the larger caliber guns arent as sensitive to the issue as those who learned on the lighter recoiling guns often seem to be.

One things for sure here though, learn to shoot the heavier recoiling guns, and you'll be a better all around shooter, than if you shy away from them.
 
The US military made a move to the 5.56 solely out of concern for weight and the soldiers ability to carry ammo. One of the primary motivators for this decision was the ever increasing load being carried by troops on the ground.

As time has gone on the inefectiveness of the 5.56 has been beat to death and in the end, the only reason the military hasn't kicked the 5.56 to the curb is because of the cost of replacing the platform.

The middle ground of the debate has settled on the 6.8 as it has been judged to be the happy medium to weight and stopping power and it would be, financially, the most suitable for retrofitting the existing M4/M16.

The M1A/M14 rates roughly a 5 in my book for recoil. I would put the AR/M16 at about a 3 and the AR308/M110 at about a 4. I agree that everyones perception will be different so the scale is too subjective to be any use to you.

Based on the two rifles you posted as choices, IMHO the FNAR doesn't even make it to the starting line. The availability of parts, quality of sights, proven performance in battle over the last 60 years make the decision easy in my mind. The FNAR does have two advantages, scope use and weight. The M14 is not a comfortable platform to use a scope on. The scope just sits too high and prolonged shooting is problematic. The weight of an Standard M1A with composite stock is around 9 pounds, the National Match is around 10. The FNAR is just over 8 pounds but I believe what you save in weight here you give up in heartiness and durability.

Again, I just don't see the two rifles being in the same class.
 
As the owner of a number of old WW-II (and WW-I) platforms, I'd say they all shoot a bit softer than a 1970's Remington pump in the same caliber :( Or even an early Remmy bolt action like a 722. The deal is not that the cartridge changes, but the ergonomics sure do.

I've shot some miserable civilian bolt guns with smaller rounds than these old war horses. If the stock fits properly and has little drop, a rubber butt pad and the like - it will be fairly easy to handle, even for a long range day. Old style drop stock, steel butt and you are in for a few days of hurt after a range day. Maybe more than just your shoulder? I've been smacked in the cheek bone trying to get "down on the sights" and that ain't no fun :(

Get a rifle that fits you first and foremost. Worry about the MFG and the reputation secondly. No, don't buy junk - but the two being discussed are not junk. What feels right is usually right :)
 
Based on your scale I'd give it a 5. A 308 bolt action tires me out somewhere between 40 and 60 rounds (I can shoot more but I'm not getting any good practice out of it). With a semi-auto .308, I really haven't found a point where I don't want to shoot more due to recoil. I usually stop somewhere between 100 and 120 rounds but that is more akin to I've done enough shooting for the day on a square range. I've shot upwards of 200 rounds of .308 through a semi-auto at one sitting and there was no tiring or flinching to speak of.
 
Thanks for the many replies. I am looking into purcahsing the SOCOM in a couple of months. They are just soooo expensive. I need to empty my budsgunshop credit card first...in 3 months. SO more research for me.:D
 
Modern light weight 308 bolt guns have a sharper recoil than the heavier gas operated semi auto's.

I have sot the M1A's and they are a little bit sharper than the very similar Garand, (same design) which I can shoot all day long with no adverse affect.. the reason the M1A's are tiny bit sharper is the shorter bolt throw and gas rod compared to the Garand... either one are not bothersome at all... I find just about any semi auto will have less perceived recoil than a bolt gun..

I have a .308 bolt with a 30" Lilja Heavy Barrel, drilled with 15 gas ports at an 11 degree angle at the crown, and it barely moves, I have the same 270 sporter in a 700 rem, that has a much heavier sharper) perceived recoil.

One of the factors is your body build, if you are thick up top, heavily muscled, or just heavy, it may be less punishing than to a person at 110 lbs..

As mentioned, the set up, bench or off hand, are you all "Hunched up and bent over the gun" will have an impact, firm but not killer pull back into the shoulder, and loose (not tensed up) muscles in the back and shoulder, keeping the back fairly straight to allow your body to move with the gun.. with the proper technique even the smaller folks can handle some pretty heavy kickers..

Watch some of the you tube videos on guy trying to shoot the T-Rex (funny stuff BTW) there are a few edited versions of it where is just shows the dummies pulling the trigger (I won't really call it shooting) but there are one or two out there that show someone with heavy gun experience (at the end of the videos) that pulls the trigger on that monster and just shrugs it off, no big deal... all in the technique.. If I can find it I will come back and post the link..
B
 
BP Hunter, you will definately like the Socom. I have the II but I would suggest the 16. Rails really weren't a necessity for me, I just got a deal on mine I couldn't pass up. But as far a recoil goes? Awesome..I love to shoot her and would have to say that a standard kicks harder than the Socom. The muzzle break really helps with muzzle rise and target re-aquisition. I find myself shooting it more on the move at steel than from a bench. She is a tad bit on the heavy side...but I'm 6'3" and 250lbs so the weight doesn't really bother me too much. I wouldn't trade her for anything in the world. Do your research but take it from qualified, trained and well informed individuals with personal experience. Take whats said on forums with a grain of salt. Garuantee the first time you shoot it you will be hooked. I was so inspired I bought and entire reloading setup just for her...now thats love!
 
M1A recoil

I would rate my M1A recoil as a 4 or 4.5.

It is not a heavy M1A (like the Super Match or SOCOM II), but it does have a muzzle break.

The recoil is not an issue at all - even with the steel buttplate.

Regarding the two rifles that the OP is considering, I would get the M1A.
The FNAR looks tactical, but it is built off of a hunting rifle design and is not as robust as the M1A/M14 series in terms of reliability and durability.

The FNAR may offer slightly better accuracy, but the M1A is such a more well rounded and capable rifle.
 
If you think a slug fired from an 870 is an 8.5 you haven't fired the real kickers. That should drop down to about a 6 at most. Try firing that same slug out of a H&R or NEF single shot, break barrel shotgun and you'll instantly double what it feels like to shoot the same slug from an 870. I can shoot slugs out of my 870 all day long if I want. I can shoot one slug out of a break barrel shotgun and I won't want to shoot anything for a week. There's a HUGE difference.

That said I think the .308 has considerably less recoil than that slug from an 870. It depends on what you're firing it in of course. A light rifle will definitely get your attention while a heavy rifle like an AR-10 makes the recoil totally reasonable. I have a 30.06 Savage 110 and it has far more recoil than an AR-10 firing .308's. My friend shot that Savage once and won't even think about shooting it again. I will shoot it for about 25-30 rounds before I give up on it. It can get a little much because it's a fairly light rifle.

Jeff56 is on to something here.. it is the weight differential between the two weapons... The 870, especially if equipped with a Mag Extension and fully loaded is much heavier than the lighter sporting double or break actions.. it is simple physics, it takes energy to move objects, it's perceived recoil is less.

The gas Systems in the AR eat energy to operate the system, and the springs involved also bleed off energy before it gets to your shoulder... where the bolt is just straight recoil, and nothing in the gun except maybe a recoil pad to take up the slack...
 
Last edited:
OK Found it..
Here is someone who knows how to shoot a heavy cartridge...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7lhTqWOS5Y

And here are some folks that don't (same caliber BTW, only the 1st video is a lighter gun!) Also note that the last guy on the video knows how to handle recoil, and the way he is set up.. back straight and loose, pulled into the right spot on the shoulder, and not tensed up.. Funny Stuff!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ged4lz_Fw2Y
 
I forgot to add that I would rate the Mauser and the Mosin to about 9 when lying prone or form a bench. Ouch!!
 
I forgot to add that I would rate the Mauser and the Mosin to about 9 when lying prone or from a bench. Ouch!!

I bought a Hogue stock and foreend for my 870. It has a very cushy stock pad which has reduced its recoil to abut a 6.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top