Felt Rifle Recoil?

[Sharps Shooter]

Besides the obvious (weight, stock fit and recoil pad) what factors affect a rifle’s felt recoil? The reason I ask is because Dad recently sold an old Remington 30-06 (I don’t remember the model number) that he hadn’t fired in over 30 years. He gave up on it because he claimed it kicked too hard. He had its stock cut to fit him and had a good recoil pad installed, yet he still says it was the hardest kicking rifle he ever owned. I’m pretty sure Dad has always been somewhat recoil sensitive, but he’s far from inexperienced. He probably had 20 years big game hunting experience behind him when he bought that Remington. And he’s probably had a dozen or more different big game rifles since, including another 30-06 (Ruger). He swore off Remington rifles forever because of that one. He says it made him close his eyes and jerk the trigger every time he shot it.
I never fired the gun, so I don’t know from first hand experience what the recoil was like. I just know that to this day Dad claims there was something wrong with it which made it kick too damned hard. Is that possible? Can the shape of a rifles stock affect the felt recoil even though the stock is right length for a person? Would a tight chamber or barrel increase felt recoil much? Could it be a combination of factors that would cause a rifle to kick harder than another rifle of about the same weight and chambered for the same cartridge?

 

[knoxx45]

Maybe ..

It was the shape of the butt. If it was too narrow, it could magnify the felt recoil, or if it was contacting his face in a weird way... I guess anything is possible

 

[B.D. Turner]

I sold a Remington Sendero in 300 win mag due to recoil. I later traded for a Ruger 77 in 300 win mag and found it to have about half the recoil as the Remington. Hard to explain how a heavy rifle recoils more than a lighter rifle using the same load. Could it be that the remington bore is tighter?

 

[Art Eatman]

One thing to do is to look at a rifle from the top, and check the angle (if any) of the cheekpiece area with the centerline of the bore. If the rear of the stock angles off the centerline away from the cheek, that's "cast-off".

Some rifles with cast-off have the angle of the cheekpiece itself angled off as well. In recoil, the cheekpiece slides into the jawbone/cheekbone instead of away. That hurts.

Art

 

[dfaugh]

Well, there's alot more to a "proper" fitting stock than just the length... The cast, the drop, and the size of the recoil pad/buttplate will all have an effect.

I used to have a Win Model 70, in .270 that was pretty brutal to shoot but that was a light weight gun with a short barrel, and no recoil pad, so you might expect that.

However, I just inherited an old Model 8 Remington autoloader, in .35 Remington. I mentioned in another thread how wicked the recoil was, and was told by several people that it COULDN'T be that bad. All I know is that that thing rattles my teeth! I also have an Enfield that Bubba got ahold of (Cut down the stock, and added a recoil pad, currently restoring it.) You'd think the recoil would be similar to my other milsurps, 8mm or 7.62x54R, or a modern 30-06, maybe .308 right?
Wrong! That one also knocks me around quite a bit.

So this is why we often speak of "perceived recoil" vs. actual recoil.

 

[Gohon]

I once had a Remington 308 that I felt the same way as your dad. The problem was the Monte Carlo stock. The recoil was crushing my cheek which caused me not to position myself right and the recoil was brutal. Sold the gun and bought a Marlin 99 in 308 and it was a pussy cat to shoot. To this day I shy away from any rifle with a high cheek rest comb.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The load being fired also factors in. Firing a 150 grain bullet in that rifle may be fine, where a 220 grainer might be a bit punishing. More powder/heavier bullet= more recoil.

 

[Terrierman]

Something about those Ruger M 77 stocks works for me.

 

[Sharps Shooter]

Thanks for the replies folks. It seems like most of them leaned towards improper stock fit and/or stock shape. I learned a thing or two. I understand now how even though Dad had the stock cut for proper length; the rifle could still have kicked him in the side of his face. That would have been painful.
I had a .300 WM (Model 70) with a nice Monte Carlo stock a while back and it actually made me dizzy every time I shot it. I traded it for another Model 70 .300 WM with a synthetic stock and without the cheek piece. I don’t mind its recoil a bit. But up until I read the replies in this thread, I thought the difference was the synthetic stock. I’d read once that synthetic stocks absorb some of the recoil. I’m wondering now if that darn cheek piece on the old Model 70 wasn’t punching my cheek pretty hard.
I guess it really doesn’t matter now that Dad has sold that old Remington. Except for some he passed to me, Dad is selling off most of his guns. He is keeping a couple around for home defense. He’s getting on in years and can no longer hunt. But he’s had a good run. He’s been hunting and shooting as far back as I can remember, and I’m 58. Hopefully, in a few years my grandchildren will be hunting with Dad’s old guns.