Is recoil really that big an issue?

[Jason_W]

Once considered a working man's do-all gun, the shotgun seems to be falling out of favor in the US and is even maligned by some (often because said individual is judging the shotgun by rifle standards).

One of the biggest complaints I hear from the anti-shotgun crowd is that the recoil is too heavy. This assertion baffled me. I grew up firing shotguns at all manner of targets and game and the only I time the recoil got to be a bit much was the day I fired 30+ slugs from the bench or the few times I fired 3.5" lightfield slugs (mostly for spits and giggles).

Firing standard power 12 ga 2.75" bird, slugs, and buck from an unsupported position never bothered me at all and recoil never registered at all when I shot at game.

While the effects of recoil are somewhat subjective, I'm wondering if the effects are at least a little overblown by shotgun detractors.

 

[Armored farmer]

I never experienced any problems with recoil, even firing hundreds of 12ga rounds during a weekend trapshooting competition when I was a teenager..
Fortunately for me, my father was knowledgeable enough to provide me with good hearing protection and not one, but two recoil reducers in my trap gun.

I don't think an afternoon of informal shooting, or hunting will hold a candle to the hundreds of rounds fired weekly by competitive shooters.
If you have a gun that hurts you, even slightly, and shoot it enough times........you WILL develop issues. Period.
That's why they make release triggers.

 

[Jason_W]

I never experienced any problems with recoil, even firing hundreds of 12ga rounds during a weekend trapshooting competition when I was a teenager..
Fortunately for me, my father was knowledgeable enough to provide me with good hearing protection and not one, but two recoil reducers in my trap gun.

I don't think an afternoon of informal shooting, or hunting will hold a candle to the hundreds of rounds fired weekly by competitive shooters.
If you have a gun that hurts you, even slightly, and shoot it enough times........you WILL develop issues. Period.
That's why they make release triggers.

Good point. Gun fit and proper technique can really mitigate the effects of recoil. I wonder if part of the issue stems from shooters who first learn to shoot with an AR and then not changing technique the first time they pick up a gun with actual recoil. The high on the shoulder position most AR shooters seem to take would be murder with even a light trap load.

 

[jmr40]

There is a big difference in 2 3/4" game loads and standard buckshot or slug loads. Those heavier loads will exceed 300 WM recoil when fired from lighter weight shotguns. That is about 6X the recoil of a 223 round fired from an AR. No one would recommend a 300 WM for a novice hunter and most people today consider the recoil to be unjustified for even experienced hunters. Considering you gain nothing from the added recoil I can see why the shotgun is falling from favor. A shotguns actual performance has always been over stated.

 

[Jason_W]

There is a big difference in 2 3/4" game loads and standard buckshot or slug loads. Those heavier loads will exceed 300 WM recoil when fired from lighter weight shotguns. That is about 6X the recoil of a 223 round fired from an AR. No one would recommend a 300 WM for a novice hunter and most people today consider the recoil to be unjustified for even experienced hunters. Considering you gain nothing from the added recoil I can see why the shotgun is falling from favor. A shotguns actual performance has always been over stated.

In terms of recoil energy, that's true, but the recoil velocity is far lower so the energy is transferred to the shoulder over a longer period of time. Firing a .300 WM, is a far more miserable experience than firing some buckshot from the standing position.

 

[expat_alaska]

I never experienced any problems with recoil, even firing hundreds of 12ga rounds during a weekend trapshooting competition when I was a teenager..
Fortunately for me, my father was knowledgeable enough to provide me with good hearing protection and not one, but two recoil reducers in my trap gun.

If you have a gun that hurts you, even slightly, and shoot it enough times........you WILL develop issues. Period.

That's why they make release triggers.

If those were the buttstock Edwards units I am thinking about back in the day, and you had a ventilated recoil pad, firing that heavy shotgun was a piece of cake.

As I have said previously on another thread, I worked for two years as a teenager at the no longer existant Roberts' Shooting Park in Elkhorn NE 69'-70' setting/pulling trap/skeet. We had a couple of well-to-do old gents that had beautiful Krieghoff guns with release triggers. I had no problem setting trap for them in a steel traphouse, but was a bit apprehensive about pulling for them. If a clay (maybe cracked) came out of the trap in pieces, they would call for a new bird, all the while holding down on the trigger, and they had several AD's doing so. So much so that the range managers forbid the use of release triggers after that.

Gun fit and proper technique can really mitigate the effects of recoil.

Wholeheartedly agree. My Dad had a 1930's Fox Sterlingworth 20 gauge SXS with a drop at the heel of 3" and no recoil pad which weighed in at 5.25#. It was a pleasure to carry for quail hunting but it would beat one to death for 1 round of skeet using 7/8 ounce loads. My normal skeet gun was an 870 2 3/4" 12 gauge, drop was 2 1/4" at the heel, ventilated recoil pad, 26" VR barrel with an IC choke. Could shoot it all day long with 1 1/8 ounce loads, and the drop allowed me to see the entire top of the vent rib..

Considering you gain nothing from the added recoil I can see why the shotgun is falling from favor. A shotguns actual performance has always been over stated.

Well, if you try to use a shotgun a replacement for a rifle, you are correct: it is not, even with rifled barrels. If one uses it for HD, bird hunting (to include turkeys), and deer hunting where only shotguns with slugs are allowed, it is just fine. One does not need to use magnum loads to accomplish the task.

See the next quote, please.

In terms of recoil energy, that's true, but the recoil velocity is far lower so the energy is transferred to the shoulder over a longer period of time. Firing a .300 WM, is a far more miserable experience than firing some buckshot from the standing position.

Jason, if you are speaking of the .300 Win Mag, I totally agree. When I lived in Alaska I used a Rem 700 in .300 Win Mag with 165 grain handloads for moose, sheep, goats, and black bear. Sighting it in before hunting season, I could only go 10-12 rounds at the bench before my shoulder was killing me.

Just my $.02 worth.

Flame on!

Jim

 

[Jason_W]

Well, if you try to use a shotgun a replacement for a rifle, you are correct: it is not, even with rifled barrels. If one uses it for HD, bird hunting (to include turkeys), and deer hunting where only shotguns with slugs are allowed, it is just fine. One does not need to use magnum loads to accomplish the task.


Jim

That's my point summed up better than I was able.

Shotguns are also great for people who aren't really big game hunters, but want the ability to take one should a target of opportunity present itself.

The last couple of seasons I hunted deer in northern New England where rifles are legal, all I hunted with was a smooth bore shotgun. Why? because I hated what deer hunting involved back there. I just can't put in 8+ hours of sitting in a cold deer stand for only a very slight chance of seeing a legal deer (Vermont and Maine have both been ranked among the 10 worst states for deer hunting).

What would I do? Hop into the thick stuff (which is mostly what the woods are back home) with a mag full or buck or slugs and a pocket full of birdshot. When I got sick of not seeing so much as a deer track, I'd load up with birdshot and often at least get to go home with a few grouse or a hare. Mixed bag hunting like that was legal in VT and ME.

Now, if I had the endurance for boredom required to be Mr. dedicated big game hunter, rifles would definitely be more exciting to me. But for my preffered type of hunting, which could more accurately be called armed foraging, a shotgun is ideal.

 

[FL-NC]

Once considered a working man's do-all gun, the shotgun seems to be falling out of favor in the US and is even maligned by some (often because said individual is judging the shotgun by rifle standards).

One of the biggest complaints I hear from the anti-shotgun crowd is that the recoil is too heavy. This assertion baffled me. I grew up firing shotguns at all manner of targets and game and the only I time the recoil got to be a bit much was the day I fired 30+ slugs from the bench or the few times I fired 3.5" lightfield slugs (mostly for spits and giggles).

Firing standard power 12 ga 2.75" bird, slugs, and buck from an unsupported position never bothered me at all and recoil never registered at all when I shot at game.

While the effects of recoil are somewhat subjective, I'm wondering if the effects are at least a little overblown by shotgun detractors.

Its all in the eyes/shoulders of the beholder/victim.

You are talking about people's individual comfort and pain thresh holds. What may be an easy 5 mile jog for me may give you a heart attack and literally kill you if you tried to keep up. Of course, you may be able to run circles around me for all I know, but same principle. As for me, unless I'm firing something like my 870 turkey special with 3" nitro turkey loads, I don't mind it so much.

 

[Jason_W]

Its all in the eyes/shoulders of the beholder/victim.

You are talking about people's individual comfort and pain thresh holds. What may be an easy 5 mile jog for me may give you a heart attack and literally kill you if you tried to keep up. Of course, you may be able to run circles around me for all I know, but same principle. As for me, unless I'm firing something like my 870 turkey special with 3" nitro turkey loads, I don't mind it so much.

Sadly, That's pretty accurate right now.

But I agree. Being 6'2" and 250 lbs does have its advantages. Though, I have seen many leaner framed men and women work a 12-bore with ease.

 

[expat_alaska]

That's my point summed up better than I was able.

I'd load up with birdshot and often at least get to go home with a few grouse or a hare. Mixed bag hunting like that was legal in VT and ME.

Now, if I had the endurance for boredom required to be Mr. dedicated big game hunter, a rifles would definitely be more exciting to me. But for my preffered type of hunting, which could more accurately be called armed foraging, a shotgun is ideal.

Thanks for the reply. When we went moose hunting in Alaska it was early in the morning. If we got nothing (which was pretty much the norm) we would go back to camp for lunch and cruise the gravel roads afterwards in the area for spruce hens (spruce grouse). We used .22 handguns and went for head shots at 10 feet. These birds were so tame that we always came back to camp with dinner. Stewed them and ate them with mashed potatoes and lots of gravy.

Sorry, I am way off topic.

Jim

 

[Jason_W]

That's my point summed up better than I was able.

Shotguns are also great for people who aren't really big game hunters, but want the ability to take one should a target of opportunity present itself.

The last couple of seasons I hunted deer in northern New England where rifles are legal, all I hunted with was a smooth bore shotgun. Why? because I hated what deer hunting involved back there. I just can't put in 8+ hours of sitting in a cold deer stand for only a very slight chance of seeing a legal deer (Vermont and Maine have both been ranked among the 10 worst states for deer hunting).

What would I do? Hop into the thick stuff (which is mostly what the woods are back home) with a mag full or buck or slugs and a pocket full of birdshot. When I got sick of not seeing so much as a deer track, I'd load up with birdshot and often at least get to go home with a few grouse or a hare. Mixed bag hunting like that was legal in VT and ME.

Now, if I had the endurance for boredom required to be Mr. dedicated big game hunter, rifles would definitely be more exciting to me. But for my preffered type of hunting, which could more accurately be called armed foraging, a shotgun is ideal.

 

[1911 guy]

Recoil isn't pleasant, regardless of the amount. However, it isn't that big of a deal if you learn to deal with it. Learning to deal with it is where most detractors stop short. They try it once, don't like it and give up. For some of us, though, dealing with it was the only choice to start hunting and the only legal choice to hunt deer. It's like riding a bicycle. You fall over and skin your knees a few times, then you get the hang of it.

Economics plays a role, too. Most of us here own multiple firearms in a variety of calibers. However, Some of us were once in a position to own one firearm so we maximized utility and versatility. Even today, if i were forced to keep only one firearm, it would be a shotgun.

 

[kudu]

Recoil is very subjective with most guns, but with shotguns it can be horrible for one person and not hardly noticeable by the next. Very rarely do hunters with large bore rifles go out and shoot 100 rounds in a couple hours, shotgunners do it all the time. If the gun doesn't quite fit, the hurt starts to accumulate and before you know it you have bruised cheek or purple shoulder. Along with a flinch that makes you more miserable because you start missing targets. That is why shotguns really need to be fit you.

The occasional season of backyards clays and bird hunts rarely bring out what volume shooters see in just an afternoon or two. Granted I don't shoot near what I once did, only shoot about 4-6 thousand clay birds a year now as opposed to the 25-30 thousand I used to when I shot competitive skeet and sporting clays. Some guns I have shot don't fit well and after a box of shells I know it. I have been fortunate that almost all Remington shotguns fit me well, as well as most Berettas.

We have a lot of people now that are getting into shotguns now that have never dealt with them. They might have jumped on the AR bandwagon and started to diversify into other platforms. If you go from shooting 30 rounds of .223 to a 12 gauge and a box of 12 gauge ammo, they are going to feel like they have been pummeled in the face and shoulder. Most do not know about proper shooting form or fit. Where everyone used to have a single shot shotgun or a pump, they now have an AR, and when you go from a very light low recoil platform to a bit heavier shotgun that really should be mounted properly and consistently to get the best out of it, they suffer.

I'm wondering if the effects are at least a little overblown by shotgun detractors.

I believe this is a true statement. I have found most shotgun people can do really well at rifle and pistol shooting without too many problems, but when a rifle shooter goes to shotguns they really have difficulty adapting, and the same with pistol to shotguns.
I am not talking about shooting a stationary target, but a bird or target in flight.
This may not be true for everyone, but in my experience I would say it's about 75% accurate.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I personally don't get it, either.

A 12 gauge shotgun is a very mild kicking firearm compared to many options. Even with full power 3" magnum slugs, my five pound cut down NEF Pardner single shot is an absolute pussycat even when firing several cases in an afternoon.

All kidding aside, with full power buck and slugs, recoil is certainly there. There's a reason low recoil buck and slug has gathered a large following in law enforcement, most people agree that mastering a 12 gauge is tough when firing full power load, especially if you aren't shooting something like a heavy gas gun that absorbs the recoil better than a standard pump.

 

[entropy]

If you learn to shoulder a long arm properly, recoil should not be an issue. Of all the you tube vids of guys shooting African game guns down a test tunnel (you guys know the ones I mean) only one guy held the .577 or .700 or what ever it was correctly.
I've shot 500 Trap rounds in a day before without a sore shoulder. I've shot over a thousand rounds from M60's in a day, and twice that from M16's and SAW's. 200 rounds from Mosins and Mausers had more effect, though still not horrible. When my son was ten, he'd shoot 100 rounds of 7.62x54R a day all summer long. (Back when a case of 880 was $50) A lot of the younger shooters went from .22's to .223's, and never learned where to put a rifle butt on the shoulder. Shoot a .30-06 like I see a lot of the younger vets shoot AR's (way up on the top of the shoulder) and you have a nasty bruise!

 

[Armored farmer]

If those were the buttstock Edwards units I am thinking about back in the day, and you had a ventilated recoil pad, firing that heavy shotgun was a piece of cake.

It was.,.,,Jess Edwards put it in my gun himself.
Bill Staub put one of his 'mercury' reducers in the top of the magazine tube on my model 12.

 

[cdb1]

Sadly, That's pretty accurate right now.

But I agree. Being 6'2" and 250 lbs does have its advantages. Though, I have seen many leaner framed men and women work a 12-bore with ease.

Size has nothing to do with ability to handle recoil.

 

[cdb1]

The effects of recoil are cumulative.

No matter what people think, the less felt recoil a firearm has the more accurate a person can shoot it.

If you put Juicy Fruit in the freezer for two weeks then take it out and chew it, it will get you high.


One of the above statements is false.

 

[Shed]

Recoil is more of a subjective experience in my opinion. Get used to shooting .45 ACP in a handgun and shooting 9mm is a breeze; but shoot .22lr for months and then 9mm and you flinch more.

Unfortunately, it looks to me like many younger shooters nowadays are gravitating to .223/5.56 rifles and 9mm pistols for competition and the like (aside from 3 gun). That's fine, but I feel that it does make them more recoil averse. I was at a training and people were afraid to shoot a lever action 30-30, but they were all over the M&P AR-15.

It's a shame; shotguns are extremely affordable and useful for a variety of applications (defense; hunting; recreation). And while I've spent more of my life shooting handguns, there's nothing more fun to me than busting clays on the trap field.

 

[Jason_W]

Recoil is more of a subjective experience in my opinion. Get used to shooting .45 ACP in a handgun and shooting 9mm is a breeze; but shoot .22lr for months and then 9mm and you flinch more.

Unfortunately, it looks to me like many younger shooters nowadays are gravitating to .223/5.56 rifles and 9mm pistols for competition and the like (aside from 3 gun). That's fine, but I feel that it does make them more recoil averse. I was at a training and people were afraid to shoot a lever action 30-30, but they were all over the M&P AR-15.

It's a shame; shotguns are extremely affordable and useful for a variety of applications (defense; hunting; recreation). And while I've spent more of my life shooting handguns, there's nothing more fun to me than busting clays on the trap field.

Maybe that was an advantage to growing rural and working class. You either shot what you were given, or you didn't shoot at all. Wanna hunt partridge but dad's spare 12-gauge is all that's available? Suck it up and deal or don't hunt. Who cares if you're only 10 and bean-pole thin?

Wouldn't trade that childhood for anything.

 

[Riomouse911]

I start to drift a little bit off topic, but it's related because of the recoil issues associated with patrol shotguns:

When I started a ways back in early 1991, everyone had a shotgun in their patrol car and a select few agencies had rifles out in the field. IMHO, a lot of the LE change-over to low recoil and/or the abandonment of the patrol shotgun came from three things... and civilian defensive tastes have followed suit.

1) The lack of experience people have with firearms prior to their entry into the profession. Not everyone was as lucky as I was with a family ranch and a gun cabinet full of things to shoot anytime I wanted to. People raised in the restrictive areas (or those raised urban who never, ever got to shoot) were introduced in their academies to Ithaca 37's and 870's loaded with four full house buck and/or slug loads. These people (especially those who have a propensity to whine) often found the recoil intimidating, and they (naturally) would shy away from shooting the shotgun well, or even using the shotgun when it was called for. Lower recoil shotgun shells (obviously) have somewhat lower recoil when fired in similar guns than the older loads, and AR/Mini type .223/5.56 rifles have almost no recoil at all. In these cases yes, recoil is a big deal to these types of folks.

2) Ineffectiveness at range. Shotguns firing buckshot are great for unarmored anti-personnel action within 25-30 yards or so. However, one is responsible for every projectile fired, and pellets that miss the crook in urban settings can cause injuries (and lawsuits) downrange. We also saw on live TV how utterly useless they were in the hands of the LAPD in North Hollywood against armored shooters with rifles. Slugs would have been better in that scenario, but accurately firing slugs with a general-purpose bead sight while the mopes are firing rounds towards you from an automatic is a very tough thing to do.

3) The rise of the AR. After North Hollywood rifles were (finally) seen by the majority of admin to be able to effectively engage body-armored shooters more accurately and at greater range than shotguns, and the shotguns have slowly faded from use. Many agencies who actually had a clue about preparedness and learned from the prior incidents such as the Norco Back Robbery in 1980 did this decades ago, and as a result my local sheriff's office fielded mini 14's in patrol cars as far back as 1982. Some really large agencies, or milquetoast-run city PD's with PC chiefs, often take eons to evolve. Now on TV within the images of officers/deputies responding to hot calls you will see several patrol carbines in the hands of the responding personnel, and a shotgun is pretty much a rarity.

Shotguns still have a place, and are very useful within their wheelhouse, but the overlap with the patrol carbine (and the carbine's greater versatility) are fading patrol shotguns into the sunset. Adding to it the greater recoil-per-shot and lower ammo capacity associated with shotguns, and it's tilted even more away from them.

 

[Jason_W]

I start to drift a little bit off topic, but it's related because of the recoil issues associated with patrol shotguns:

When I started a ways back in early 1991, everyone had a shotgun in their patrol car and a select few agencies had rifles out in the field. IMHO, a lot of the LE change-over to low recoil and/or the abandonment of the patrol shotgun came from three things... and civilian defensive tastes have followed suit.

1) The lack of experience people have with firearms prior to their entry into the profession. Not everyone was as lucky as I was with a family ranch and a gun cabinet full of things to shoot anytime I wanted to. People raised in the restrictive areas (or those raised urban who never, ever got to shoot) were introduced in their academies to Ithaca 37's and 870's loaded with four full house buck and/or slug loads. These people (especially those who have a propensity to whine) often found the recoil intimidating, and they (naturally) would shy away from shooting the shotgun well, or even using the shotgun when it was called for. Lower recoil shotgun shells (obviously) have somewhat lower recoil when fired in similar guns than the older loads, and AR/Mini type .223/5.56 rifles have almost no recoil at all. In these cases yes, recoil is a big deal to these types of folks.

2) Ineffectiveness at range. Shotguns firing buckshot are great for unarmored anti-personnel action within 25-30 yards or so. However, one is responsible for every projectile fired, and pellets that miss the crook in urban settings can cause injuries (and lawsuits) downrange. We also saw on live TV how utterly useless they were in the hands of the LAPD in North Hollywood against armored shooters with rifles. Slugs would have been better in that scenario, but accurately firing slugs with a general-purpose bead sight while the mopes are firing rounds towards you from an automatic is a very tough thing to do.

3) The rise of the AR. After North Hollywood rifles were (finally) seen by the majority of admin to be able to effectively engage body-armored shooters more accurately and at greater range than shotguns, and the shotguns have slowly faded from use. Many agencies who actually had a clue about preparedness and learned from the prior incidents such as the Norco Back Robbery in 1980 did this decades ago, and as a result my local sheriff's office fielded mini 14's in patrol cars as far back as 1982. Some really large agencies, or milquetoast-run city PD's with PC chiefs, often take eons to evolve. Now on TV within the images of officers/deputies responding to hot calls you will see several patrol carbines in the hands of the responding personnel, and a shotgun is pretty much a rarity.

Shotguns still have a place, and are very useful within their wheelhouse, but the overlap with the patrol carbine (and the carbine's greater versatility) are fading patrol shotguns into the sunset. Adding to it the greater recoil-per-shot and lower ammo capacity associated with shotguns, and it's tilted even more away from them.

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the logic behind LEOs opting for carbines over scatterguns. It's their job to deal with situations a civilian likely never will. The chances of a civilian having to engage a goblin outside of a shotgun's effective range is statistically so low as to be practically nonexistent.

I don't even have anything against a civilian who chooses a carbine for SD duties over a shotgun.

What I take issue with is the trend of portraying the shotgun as the worst type of gun ever invented. While a big part of my affinity for the shotgun is admittedly nostalgia, a shotgun is still arguably the most versatile weapon a civilian can lay hands on.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

As others have mentioned, recoil is subjective.

Myself, I can handle hard recoiling handguns better than I can hard recoiling long guns. Just something about it.
12 gauge buck and slugs is about as heavy as I want to deal with.

Everyone at my deer camp is shooting 7-mags, .300 mags and such. I continue to use my trusty .30-06 because it is the most powerful rifle that I can shoot comfortably.
I aint ashamed.

 

[expat_alaska]

Everyone at my deer camp is shooting 7-mags, .300 mags and such. I continue to use my trusty .30-06 because it is the most powerful rifle that I can shoot comfortably.
I aint ashamed.

We are off-topic in this thread, but... I lived in Alaska for 35 years and always used a Rem 700 .300 Win Mag and my hunting buddy used a Ruger 77 .30-06.

And that .300 Win Mag beat the heck out of me at the range after 8-10 rounds. In the field, not so bad.

Funny, all of the moose we killed were just as dead with either caliber.

Don't be ashamed to take that to the bank, Paul!

Jim

 

[cdb1]

I've had three shoulder operations, at the ages of 15, 20 and 42. I never noticed recoil until after the third operation. I really notice it now. Instead of deer and hog hunting with a .270 and 30-06 I now use a 6.5x55 and 30-30. I now use a 20 gauge for dove, quail and turkey and only use a 3" 12 gauge for duck and geese. Since going lighter it seems the animals have died just as fast.