44 mag desert eagle recoil less than revolver

[lobo9er]

My question is to anyone who has either shot or owned both. How significant is the recoil reduced by the gas opertion in a 44 mag desert eagle. Whats the felt recoil like compared to its revolver counterpart? I have heard 44 mag are alot more mild out of the semi auto desert eagle compared to a revolver. I dont mind the grip being more stout and the wieght isn't that much of a problem. The price isn't that much more than a nice smith and wesson. Infact used they are in the same price range considering I just looked at a couple SW scandium snub nose 357's that were $900-1000. 44 mag seems like what everyone hunts white tail around my part so I want to follow suit. And if a couple extra bucks cuts down recoil Its sounds like a good idea to me. Yes I have held them but I have never shot one. If only you could try before you buy at the gun store.

 

[SDiver40]

I have owned and shot both in .44 and the Eagle seems to be a bit less recoil because it is heavier. BUT for hunting you might want to check the rules on the barrel length. I don’t really hunt any more, but once upon a time the barrel had to be at least 6in. ( I think ) if you wanted to hunt with it.
Find you a good revolver with a 8in. Barrel and go shoot it. I think you will be happy going that route for hunting or just out shooting. Mine has the ported barrel ( Taurus 8 3/8in. ) and I shoot it one handed all the time with full house Mags.
Tom

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

I've never shot a DE, but it seems plausible that its gas operation, moving slide, greater weight and large grip might reduce felt recoil.

 

[WarMachine]

Generally, automatics will have less felt recoil due to some of the energy being directed to work the action. As such, the recoil profile will be different, though the overall final value will be the same. You'd be violating the laws of physics if some of the energy just disappeared.

 

[sideways]

I have owned and fired both and to lug around that eagle in the woods all day for the difference in recoil is not a fair trade geeze that thing was like carrying a sack of hammers .

 

[Kingofthehill]

My 10" .44 mag DEagle had a very minor recoil. Far less then a .44mag revolver (at least any i have shot)

JOe

 

[pageophile]

Had a 6" DE and the difference in recoil with the same loads out of a 5" revolver were significant. Just the nature of the platforms.

 

[mljdeckard]

I thought that the difference was negligible, but I found that the .357 was a significant difference between a revolver.

 

[MCgunner]

Get one with a stock and call it a carbine, probably weigh less. Even my Contender is svelte by comparison.

 

[TIMC]

The recoil on my 6" .44 Desert Eagle is much lighter than my 629 S&W in .44 mag.

On the other hand I have no problem one hand shooting my 629 but not the case with the Desert eagle.

 

[Mooseman]

The felt recoil from the DE I borrowed was noticeably less than my revolver.

 

[lobo9er]

I now know 1st hand recoil from 44 mag desert eagle is hardly anything very easy to shoot havent shot any really hot loads only 200 grain but i doubt 240 grain will hop anymore. very pleased!!

 

[MachIVshooter]

Yes, they recoil considerably less that a Model 29. Part of it is the action absorbing some of the force, part of it is the extra pound and a half of steel.

I have a .50, fun gun, super accurate, and I have taken it hunting (never got to fire at a game animal, though).

With a proper rig, their 4-1/2 pound weight is tolerable. Certainly less encumbering than a rifle.

Just remember that you can't use cast bullets with the gas system, so some of the gnarly hard cast loads are not available to you. Also remember that they don't function with cream puff loads, and that includes some of the commercial stuff that is labeled magnum. But get yourself something like Buffalo bore 300 gr. JFN load and go bag a critter!

Also remember that your velocities will be a little higher than a revolver, since there is no cylinder gap to bleed off pressure. Those BB loads that get 1,330 from a 5.5" Redhawk may be closer to 1,400 from the 6" DE. My hunting load in my 6" .50 is a 325 gr. Speer JHP at 1,510 FPS for 1,646 ft/lbs. That load produced 100 yard groups of 2-9/16".

 

[lobo9er]

mach. have you had any loose fit between the barrel and reciever? or slide?

 

[Manco]

Generally, automatics will have less felt recoil due to some of the energy being directed to work the action. As such, the recoil profile will be different, though the overall final value will be the same. You'd be violating the laws of physics if some of the energy just disappeared.

That's basically the right idea. Autoloaders tend to spread some of the total momentum that is transferred to the shooter (i.e. impulse or recoil) over time so that the peak force that one feels is a bit lower, which in turn is perceived by many as less "felt recoil."

As for energy conservation, although energy doesn't simply disappear, not absolutely all of the energy of a cartridge that does work, as opposed to being wasted as heat or escaping gas, is used to propel the bullet. A small amount--just a few foot-pounds, I would estimate--from each cartridge is used to cycle the action, and some portion of that energy will eventually be used to ignite the primer of the next cartridge that is fired. You already knew this, but my point here is that this is a very small amount of energy in comparison to the bullet's kinetic energy. If, hypothetically, it were enough to make a noticeable difference in the felt recoil on its own, then it would take a substantial amount of energy away from the bullet, making autoloaders somewhat inefficient firearms. Some people actually seem to believe this, but they would be wrong--only a few foot-pounds are involved, in the low single digits for most handguns.

In a revolver, the energy to cycle the action and ignite the next primer comes from the shooter instead of the cartridge (although the same is true when the shooter initially racks the slide of an autoloader, it doesn't count because each cartridge must still provide some energy for the next cycle). However, those who believe that revolvers are therefore more efficient with the energy of cartridges are forgetting about the cylinder gap, which loses surprisingly little energy but probably a bit more than cycling the actions of autoloaders, I would guess.

 

[MachIVshooter]

However, those who believe that revolvers are therefore more efficient with the energy of cartridges are forgetting about the cylinder gap, which loses surprisingly little energy but probably a bit more than cycling the actions of autoloaders, I would guess.

Actually, the velocity loss from cylinder gap can be substantial, depending on the cartridge pressure and size of the gap. And the escaping gas can be hazardous; when S&W was doing their promo right after the 500's came out, we had a guy nearly lose his thumb that he had aligned with the barrel on the side of the cylinder. The .460's are even worse. I know, stupid way to hold any wheelgun, let alone a big magnum. But it shows just how much heat and pressure is coming out of there.

Gas sealing revolver designs like the M1895 really are beneficial (although the 7.62x38R is a pipsqueak with or without it). But the additional cost of manufacturing, complication of the mechanism, and the resulting loss in robustness of the unit, have made it an impractical design for most applications.

 

[Manco]

Actually, the velocity loss from cylinder gap can be substantial, depending on the cartridge pressure and size of the gap.

Perhaps I should have said that the energy (and velocity) loss is "a lot less than I would have expected" instead, as intuitively it looks like a huge leakage. It's substantial, but not a large percentage in terms of velocity or momentum. In terms of energy the loss is greater, maybe even an order of magnitude over that of cycling the action in autoloaders, come to think of it. There aren't many hard numbers out there, though, as practically every revolver has this issue so nobody cares overly much.

And the escaping gas can be hazardous; when S&W was doing their promo right after the 500's came out, we had a guy nearly lose his thumb that he had aligned with the barrel on the side of the cylinder. The .460's are even worse. I know, stupid way to hold any wheelgun, let alone a big magnum. But it shows just how much heat and pressure is coming out of there.

Well, those are BIG revolvers. A .22 will sting and maybe even burn a little, but it won't gouge chunks out of your finger like a .460 or .500 will. This is definitely something I warn people about when I'm showing them how to shoot any revolver. Not many people do this that I'm aware of--it's easy to forget as long as you instinctively hold the gun properly, but some people put their "weak" hand way forward and that's when injuries can occur.

Gas sealing revolver designs like the M1895 really are beneficial (although the 7.62x38R is a pipsqueak with or without it). But the additional cost of manufacturing, complication of the mechanism, and the resulting loss in robustness of the unit, have made it an impractical design for most applications.

You can also use silencers/suppressors (whatever you prefer to call them) with these, I think.