Generalized "rule of thumb" question Felt recoil.

[Rule3]

See if we can answer this without a lot of math, physics formula and the insignificant weigh of 2 grains of powder in the formula and keep it simple.
No bowling ball or tennis ball punching (never understood that)

What has less felt recoil in any handgun (revolver or semi auto)?

All within published reload data.

A heavy bullet and Fast burning powder
A heavy bullet with slower burning powder

A light bullet with fast powder
A light bullet with slower powder


Lets use an example of a simple 38 special:

A 125 gr bullet and a 158 gr bullet
MIn or Maz loads for published data.

Tightgroup or Autocomp (CFE pistol) or similar spread

Using the Hodgdon burn rate chart

https://hodgdon.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/burn-rate-color.pdf

https://www.hodgdonreloading.com/reloading-data-center?rdc=true&type=53

 

[jmr40]

Plug in your data here and trust the math.

ShootersCalculator.com | Recoil Calculator

That is going to give your REAL recoil. FELT recoil can be confusing because there are too many variables. A lot of it is between your ears. If you BELIEVE a certain load has more recoil then you will FEEL it has more recoil even though it may not.

Also, note the recoil velocity numbers. Even though the actual recoil may be the same many people FEEL that the faster the recoil comes back the more uncomfortable it is. Once again that is more between the ears than anything else, but for some people it may be an issue. Generally speaking heavy slow loads recoil slower.

My experience is more with rifles than handguns, but the difference between 2-3 ft lbs in a rifle is almost impossible to feel. If you have one load at 20 ft lbs recoil and another at 18 ft lbs you'd probably not be able to tell the difference. The difference between 20 and 25 you may not find objectionable, but you could feel the difference.

Also things like stock shape, grip angle, and barrel length change how that recoil hits you. Some guns have more muzzle flip due to their design and may FEEL like they have more recoil than they have. A rifle with a tiny butt plate concentrates recoil onto a smaller area and will FEEL like it has more recoil than an identical rifle with a larger butt plate.

But you can USUALLY fire different loads in very similar firearms and eliminate most of those factors. That is why I advise people to simply trust the math. If you run the numbers the load that comes out with the most recoil, has the most recoil.

 

[Hugger-4641]

Sorry, I can't process your question without a little deductive reasoning.
"Felt" recoil is gonna be different for each person depending on grip, stance, strength, body size muscle mass, etc.
I can shoot a 44mag one handed, no problem. My wife can't.
But, if you wanted to actually measure the recoil energy, the heavier bullet at the highest velocity is likely gonna produce the most kinetic energy, which is also likely gonna have the most recoil force.
Force=Mass x Velocity.
So if you could push a lighter bullet fast enough to have more force than the heavier bullet at a slower speed, then the lighter bullet could have more recoil.

 

[BBarn]

I find perceived recoil to be rather subjective (hence the term "perceived"). The level of muzzle blast also affects my perception of a load's recoil.

That obviously doesn't answer the question, but it's hard to quantify perception.

 

[.308 Norma]

it's hard to quantify perception.

For sure it would be hard for me. But I’ve never spent much time around mules, let alone been kicked by one. Yet I’ve heard and read the statement, “It kicks like a mule.” hundreds of times from shooters who were trying to express how much recoil a particular firearm has. “Kicks like a mule” is a quantification of a perception, isn’t it?

 

[BBarn]

“Kicks like a mule” is a quantification of a perception, isn’t it?

To a mule perhaps.

 

[WisBorn]

For sure it would be hard for me. But I’ve never spent much time around mules, let alone been kicked by one. Yet I’ve heard and read the statement, “It kicks like a mule.” hundreds of times from shooters who were trying to express how much recoil a particular firearm has. “Kicks like a mule” is a quantification of a perception, isn’t it?

The mules I have been around have been very mild manner. A few of the horses need an attitude adjustment.

 

[AJC1]

Taking out the perception part makes it a simple math problem. Reminds me of drag racing. More displacement and less weight makes a car faster. Guns work the same way, the more the powder, the lighter the gun the more it hammers you.

 

[High Plains]

Comparing felt recoil of a revolver and a rifle is an apples to oranges kind of setup. Revolver or semi auto pistol recoil is completely taken by hands and arms. Rifle recoil is traditionally on the shoulder of the shooting side but with a thumb hole stock the recoil is on the arm and the shoulder, so it feels like there is less “kick.” Also, a curved butt on a rifle means there is a concentration of recoil in a smaller area than if it is a flat plate —— assuming you shoulder the rifle completely. Last but not least a pistol is going to have a pivoting action at the shooters wrist that the rifle will not have. Sooooo if you can’t hold the pistol very well you almost certainly won’t have consistent accuracy.
Again, there is no real way to compare——— accuracy still matters so if you can’t get the bullet where you want then change the firearm or go to a lighter weight of bullet.

 

[jmorris]

What has less felt recoil in any handgun (revolver or semi auto)?

All within published reload data.

A heavy bullet and Fast burning powder
A heavy bullet with slower burning powder

A light bullet with fast powder
A light bullet with slower powder

“Felt” Recoil is absolutely subjective or it would be “peak” or “average” recoil. That said, I have won a lot with (non compensated handguns) using heavy bullets and very small charges of the fastest powders available.

Using light springs, less sight lift, allows me more time for the other stuff that beats the other guys. So much so that even when it was cheaper to buy factory ammunition, I would still pay extra and take the time to load my own for the competitive advantage.

Compensated pistols need the opposite to work right though. Light bullets with large charges of slower powders, keep the gun completely level, the dot doesn’t move vertically, but the recoil is much more a “violent pulse” that a “slow push”, than the uncompensated small charge, fast powder, heavy bullet, loads.

 

[WrongHanded]

I've long "felt" that for a given cartridge, working at max pressure with a given powder, a heavier bullet has less felt recoil than a light one. As far as fast or slow burning powders goes, working at max pressure, fast burning powders achieve lower velocity, which means less recoil.

 

[Rule3]

“ using heavy bullets and very small charges of the fastest powders available.

Using light springs, less sight lift, allows me more time for the other stuff that beats the other guys. So much so that even when it was cheaper to buy factory ammunition, I would still pay extra and take the time to load my own for the competitive advantage.

Compensated pistols need the opposite to work right though. Light bullets with large charges of slower powders, keep the gun completely level, the dot doesn’t move vertically, but the recoil is much more a “violent pulse” that a “slow push”, than the uncompensated small charge, fast powder, heavy bullet, loads.

You have touched on what I was thinking about. I should have not used the word felt or perceived.


"heavy bullets and very small charges of the fastest powders available."

 

[westernrover]

I've long "felt" that for a given cartridge, working at max pressure with a given powder, a heavier bullet has less felt recoil than a light one. As far as fast or slow burning powders goes, working at max pressure, fast burning powders achieve lower velocity, which means less recoil.

These are good observations.

For a given bullet at a given muzzle velocity, a fast-burning powder will produce it with less recoil than a slower-burning powder. The propellant in smokeless powders is nitrocellulose, and often nitroglycerin (in double-base powders). The things that makes powders burn "slower" are the size and shape of the particles and the addition of deterrents. Because combustion happens at the surface of the particles, larger particles with less surface area for a given mass will burn slower. Deterrents are coatings or mixtures that inhibit the combustion of the propellants. Some propellants will also contain stabilizers, anti-coppering agents, flash inhibitors. All these things add mass without adding velocity. While it seems like the mass they add isn't that much, the velocity they're ejected at can be very high. For most calculators, an average velocity is used since the velocity of various gas and solid particles is different. The average used by some calculators for handgun powder is about 5600 fps. We can see this visually in slow-motion video. We observe gas and particles ejected from the muzzle at much higher velocities than the bullets. Accelerating all that stuff adds recoil. So to achieve a given velocity for a given bullet, it will be achieved with the least recoil by the powder charge of the lowest mass that does it. Fast powders give the velocity with less mass.

Fast powders are also likely to result in less "felt" recoil because they produce lower muzzle pressures. If we think of the bullet's velocity as a function of pressure-over-time, we can achieve the same velocity with a lower peak pressure over a longer time or an equivalent higher peak pressure over a shorter duration. If we load front-load the pressure/time curve using a fast powder, the pressure will be lower when the bullet exits the muzzle. If we back-load the pressure/time curve using a slow powder, the pressure will be maintained farther down the barrel and muzzle exit pressure will be higher. Higher muzzle pressure will result in more muzzle blast and noise, increasing "felt" recoil.

This last couple points have meaningful consequences. It means that a maximum load 357 Magnum can deliver a 158 grain bullet at the same velocity as a maximum load 38 Special, and it will do it with less recoil and even less felt recoil. Let me recap: The 357 can use up to 35,000 psi (SAAMI). If we use a low mass of fast burning powder to develop this MAP early in the pressure/time curve, we can get the bullet up to speed while the pressure drops off rapidly before the bullet exits the muzzle. Our powder charge mass and muzzle pressure will be very low and both recoil and felt recoil will also be low. With the 38 Special, we cannot exceed the lower MAP limit of 17,500 psi. To achieve the same velocity, we will need a larger mass of a slower burning powder. This additional mass will be ejected at an average of something like 5600 fps, adding to the recoil. The 17,500 psi will be achieved shortly after ignition, but we'll have to keep the pressure high over a longer period of time to achieve the same velocity as the higher-peak pressure 357 load. The slow-burning powder will keep the pressure up as the bullet travels farther down the barrel, and when the bullet exits, muzzle pressure will be higher too, increasing the blast and sound level, contributing to "felt" recoil.

 

[westernrover]

These observations have other consequences. If recoil is a concern, as it would be with handheld firearms in critical applications, they mean that there are benefits to achieving an ammunition's goal-velocity with fast powders and high pressures. A charge of fast powder needed to achieve the goal-velocity has less mass (and consequently less cost) than the charge of a slow powder needed to achieve the same performance. The fast powder also takes less space in cartridges, magazines, and guns, allowing more compact, ergonomic, and higher capacity designs. The trade-off is the higher peak pressures the guns need to handle. Stronger guns make better guns.

Historically, we've seen guns that handled higher pressures promoted for the greater velocities they could achieve -- magnums, and super magnums. We got barrel-burning rifles and big-bore revolvers with ridiculous levels of recoil. But we've also more slowly begun to appreciate that only so much velocity is really needed and more is not always better. With rifles, we began to chase bullets with higher ballistic coefficients, not trying with these heavier bullets to achieve super high velocites, but starting with modest ones and trying to keep them longer. With handguns, there's been consensus forming around the necessity for a certain standard of penetration and dependable expansion, and that higher velocities may not add anything but blast, flash, and recoil.

If we recognize that there are practical limits on how much "power" is useful, we can optimize how to produce it. I've shown the advantages of achieving "goal" velocities with the fastest burning powder that will do it under the MAP. If guns get stronger, we'll be able to use even faster powders at higher pressures to achieve the needed velocities with less recoil, muzzle pressure, and noise (especially from short barrels). Lower muzzle pressures are also easier on suppressors.

 

[AJC1]

These observations have other consequences. If recoil is a concern, as it would be with handheld firearms in critical applications, they mean that there are benefits to achieving an ammunition's goal-velocity with fast powders and high pressures. A charge of fast powder needed to achieve the goal-velocity has less mass (and consequently less cost) than the charge of a slow powder needed to achieve the same performance. The fast powder also takes less space in cartridges, magazines, and guns, allowing more compact, ergonomic, and higher capacity designs. The trade-off is the higher peak pressures the guns need to handle. Stronger guns make better guns.

Historically, we've seen guns that handled higher pressures promoted for the greater velocities they could achieve -- magnums, and super magnums. We got barrel-burning rifles and big-bore revolvers with ridiculous levels of recoil. But we've also more slowly begun to appreciate that only so much velocity is really needed and more is not always better. With rifles, we began to chase bullets with higher ballistic coefficients, not trying with these heavier bullets to achieve super high velocites, but starting with modest ones and trying to keep them longer. With handguns, there's been consensus forming around the necessity for a certain standard of penetration and dependable expansion, and that higher velocities may not add anything but blast, flash, and recoil.

If we recognize that there are practical limits on how much "power" is useful, we can optimize how to produce it. I've shown the advantages of achieving "goal" velocities with the fastest burning powder that will do it under the MAP. If guns get stronger, we'll be able to use even faster powders at higher pressures to achieve the needed velocities with less recoil, muzzle pressure, and noise (especially from short barrels). Lower muzzle pressures are also easier on suppressors.

I guess the industry missed the memo because more bigger faster is released every month it seems. PRC, ultra mag, and Saum's are the latest and greatest. Granted the mpr is limited in cartridge size so rounds like the Grendel and arc buck that assertion. That's based on platform limitations not desire.

 

[barnfrog]

See if we can answer this without a lot of math, physics formula and the insignificant weigh of 2 grains of powder in the formula and keep it simple.

So far it looks like we can't.

 

[AJC1]

So far it looks like we can't.

Physics is not a 3rd grade course. Teaching complex ideas are best done through association or annology. In this example I used cars because most guys understand race car.

 

[barnfrog]

Physics is not a 3rd grade course.

Absolutely, which I why you can keep it only so simple. In this case, the original question can't really be answered without bringing in the math and physics the OP was hoping to avoid.

 

[Rule3]

Absolutely, which I why you can keep it only so simple. In this case, the original question can't really be answered without bringing in the math and physics the OP was hoping to avoid.

And on this note, let us end this thread going down the rabbit hole.
Next time someone posts a thread about how they loaded up a soft shooting target load, math will be required!

 

[Mal H]

Closed at the request of the OP.