Recoil - Locked Breech vs Blowback vs Revolver

[N3rday]

Okay, I'm considering either a Makarov, an autoloader in 9x19, or revolver, depending on what I see at the gun show. I've been wondering...

I hear Blowback designs have more recoil than regular autoloaders...how much more? How does the recoil of a 9mm (let's just say full-size or medium-size) compare to a Makarov, and how does that compare to a .38 spl revolver?

Second question: In terms of stopping power from greatest to least, it's 9mm, then 9x18, then .38 spl, right? I was always told that .38 spl was on par with the .380acp

 

[RyanM]

The main difference in recoil is how snappy it is. I got a chance to fire a Kahr MK9 once. The thing was an absolute creampuff to shoot. I've also gotten the chance to shoot a Walther PPK in .380. Ouch! Very, very snappy. Also .38 SPL through some kind of snubnose that was a bit lighter than my SP-101. Very easy to shoot. But in terms of actual muzzle rise and getting back on target after each shot, the three guns were probably about the same.

For "stopping power", 9mm and .38 SPL are just about equal, as long as you use decent ammo. The new .38 SPL short-barrel Speer Gold Dots are excellent, and easily perform on par with the premium 9mm bullets. 158 gr Remington LSWCHPs are also an excellent load, and do very well even through short barrels. 9mm Mak doesn't really hold a candle to either. There are some loads available in 9x18 that look good on paper, but the bullet design on them is frankly terrible. They definitely won't perform like a modern premium hollowpoint. In other words, you can expect them to fail to expand in a real shooting scenario.

 

[MCgunner]

I have avoided Maks for the same reason, lack of decent bullet selection. They aren't as hot as 9mm or .38 either due to the blow back design and limited working pressures. They're basically a hot .380. Oh, yeah, they rival the .38 special, but there are a bazillion effective .38 special loads and bullets and the good ol' "FBI Load" +P 158 grain SWCHP is hard to beat at any rate.

I don't find the recoil of a 9mm or .38 +P in a light gun in any way problematic, but that's me. I'm used to firing hand cannon cartridges in TC Contenders and hot .44 mags and such. People vary in their recoil tolerance. It has more to do with experience than size, though. I've seen small women shooting 40/40 at IHMSA shoot with incredibly powerful, flat shooting hand rifles. All it takes is training and practice. It ain't no macho thing.

As far as getting back on target after the shot, the 9 or .38 will get that done better than a .45 or .357, bit of a trade off in horsepower for rapid double taps. Less so with the .45 as the .357, especially in a light J frame. I don't find I can shoot my .380 a whole lot quicker than my 9mm P11. Both weigh about 14 ounces unloaded, difference is one's a locked breech and one's a blow back. I'm shooting standard pressure stuff in the .380 and +P stuff in the 9mm. Well, I don't shoot a lot of +P in it at the range, but have fired a couple hundred through it for testing and proofing. I have a lot more confidence in the little Kel Tec and have settled on it as my everyday gun pretty much, though I get in a revolver mood once in a while and carry .38 +P. I much prefer either over the .380 as a cartridge. The .380 is a slower, lighter weight bullet and I think pretty marginal in power. But, everyone has their own ideas as to a minimum and that's just me. More is always better IMHO, though, if you can easily carry it with your chosen carry style and dress and shoot it well.

I rank "stopping power" as first place to 9x19mm or 9mm Luger, what ever name you like for it. It is a well developed round with lots of good loads and in +P rivals .45ACP +P for energy levels. Second place .38 special in +P mainly because of superior bullet designs and load development in the caliber, not energy levels, not out of small, pocket length barrels anyway. Third place to the 9mm Mak.

 

[STAGE 2]

Either would be just fine. Also consider a CZ 83 in 9mm mak if you're looking for something a bit more updated. As for recoil, yes a blowback will have more due to the nature of the design, however you also have to remember that the mak is a hefty chunk of steel firing a decenty tame round.

I don't think its really fair to compare a mak to a ppk, as the mak is significantly different internally and substantially larger/heavier which soaks up alot of the recoil.

I can shoot my mak all day without any discomfort in my hand other than just the general fatigue of shooting for long periods of time. Plus the mak is very accurate for a pistol of its size as well as stone cold reliable.

As you can probably tell I am a mak owner, but I also have and very much like the PPK, and I have an extensive revolver collection as well.

At the end of the day my advise it to get both, but get the mak first. Supply is dwindling and prices are only going up. So if you get one and hate it, the you should be able toget a return or even a profit depending on time.

 

[Deanimator]

Second question: In terms of stopping power from greatest to least, it's 9mm, then 9x18, then .38 spl, right? I was always told that .38 spl was on par with the .380acp

The .380 hasn't been made that can compete with anything but .38 Special mid-range loads, or MAYBE the 130gr. fmj.

I really like the 158gr. LSWC-HP "FBI" load from Federal. Not only is there no .380 load to equal it, there CAN'T be for any .380 you're likely to come across. Almost all .380s are pure blowback and have pressure limitations. I think there was a locked breach Llama .380 at one time, but with all of the smallframe locked breech 9x19s, why bother?

Compare the powder space in a 9x19m versus a .38 Special. Don't confuse how something IS loaded with how something CAN be loaded. In a strong revolver, the .38 Special is always going to be able to beat the 9x19mm. A 357 SIG is another story.

.38 Special => 9x19mm => 9x18 => .380acp

 

[MCgunner]

Compare the powder space in a 9x19 versus a .38 Special. Don't confuse how something IS loaded with how something CAN be loaded. In a strong revolver, the .38 Special is always going to be able to beat the 9x19mm.

Absolute BS. The loads in the Speer No 11 manual for 9x19 are listed at not to exceed 35,700 cup max chamber pressure. The .380 is listed at 18,900 cup and .38 special is listed at 18,900 cup with +P loads running 22,400 cup. Powder capacity of the case has absolutely nothing to do with the performance of the cartridge in this case. When 9x19 is chambered in J frames, you'll never find it in an alloy frame gun. The cartridge would pound such a gun loose in short order where the gun will stand up to standard pressure .38, what it is designed for, with maybe a light diet of +P.

Typical energy levels for .38 special from a 2 inch gun are 260 ft lbs for +P, around 200 ft lbs for standard pressure. Out of my Kel Tec P11 subcompact, the 9mm +P I'm shooting is 410 ft lbs! That's TWICE the energy of the .38 standard load! You're pushing a 115 grain JHP to 1260 fps. That's almost .357 magnum snubbie territory or closer to it than it is to .38 special. The 9x19 is the power king in this comparo hands down, no argument. And, it does this while fitting up to 12 in a magazine in the Kel Tec, accurate, and easy to shoot! That's why I like the subcompact nines. They beat .38 ballistics, .380 ballistics, Makarov ballistics, carry plenty of ammo, and are quick to reload. I ain't worth a toot with a speedloader, much as I like my little .38s. A subcompact nine is like carrying an 11 round .357 snub gun that kicks like a .38.

Now, I'm not saying here that I think any of these guns aren't enough for self defense! I carry a .380 on occasion when I need to for concealment as well as a .38 just because I like revolvers. But, don't be buffaloed by the volume of the .38's case. It was originally designed for black powder, after all. It is plenty adequate for self defense, but keep it in perspective.

A little addition here. The .357 magnum is listed at 46,000 cup max working pressure in the Speer #11 manual. Now, the .357 is but one tenth of an inch longer than the .38 case, thicker case to contain the pressure, though. Not much powder capacity difference here, but the .357 pushes up to 750 ft lbs out of a 6" gun. The best .38 +P loads are a little over 300 ft lbs. So, the .357 is packin', out of a 6 inch gun, now, almost 2 and one half times the energy of the .38. Does this illustrate how working pressure matters? It goes beyond that, though. The .357 acheives these outragous velocity/energies with a slower burning powder. It burns at peak pressure longer down the barrel. Such powder is less dense than slower burning powders, meaning, by volume and weight, it takes more of it. So, the .357 makes use of that case volume. The .38 at its low working pressures, is only efficient with faster powders, however. That works against the .38s large volume, can't use it because it's working pressure limit is not efficent with the slower powders. So, it has an EXCESS of space in the case. The 9mm case volume is much more efficient with the faster powders and with the working pressures can out perform the .38, but it will never be a .357 magnum because it doesn't have the case volume to utilize the longer burning, slower powders at the higher working pressures. But, the rub is the .357 needs longer barrels to gain the advantage of that slow powder or it just goes to waste causing muzzle flash. In shorter barrel guns, pocket size guns, it isn't near as efficient. You are well under 500 ft lbs with most loads in a 2" barrel. A carbine? LOOK OUT! But, 2" guns aren't the perfect use of the cartridge IMHO. I don't know if I made that understandable, but there's just more to it than the size of the case. Internal ballistics is a quite complicated subject. It involves lots of combustion chemistry and mathematics I don't like being exposed to. ROFL! It is not easy to model and I've never cared, just follow the manuals and be safe and happy and keep all my digits.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Back to the original question. There is no difference in recoil -- given identical loads -- between a blowback, a locked breech and a revolver.

Recoil can be calculated as m1 * v1 = m2 * v2, where m1 is the mass of the projectile, and v1 is muzzle velocity. M2 is the mass of the gun, and v2 is the velocity of the gun in recoil. (I omit calculations for the mass and velocity of the gas for reasons of simplicity.

So you can see that with identical projectiles at identical velocities, identical weights of guns will reach identical recoil velocities.

That said, perceived recoil is another kettle of fish. First of all, the motion of the slide tends to spread the recoil impulse out over time, which tends to reduce our perception of recoil. So in comparing the three we would find:

1. The revolver has no slide, and nothing to spread recoil out over time. Its recoil will be perceived as sharper.

2. The locked breech pistol will spread out the recoil in time, but has more resistance to motion so will fall between the blowback and the revolver in terms of perceived recoil.

3. The blowback, where the resistance of the slide is governed only by its mass and the strength of the recoil spring will have the lowest perceived recoil.

Now, having said all that, the grip design is critical. A revolver, for example, will rap your middle finger as it recoils -- and that will make you notice it. Automatics are usually designed so the bottom of the trigger guard simply slides across the middle finger.

 

[bouis]

If I had to rank them I'd say that the felt recoil on revolvers and blowbacks is comparable, though it's hard to say because obviously the grip shape is very different. Weight of the gun does have a big effect as well.

That said, locked breach automatics really do cut down on percieved recoil, in my experience.

A good example is comparing the felt recoil of a S&W J-Frame Model 36 (all steel frame, 20oz) .38 Special, a Walther PP .32 ACP blowback (24 oz), and a locked-breach, plastic-framed Kel-Tec P3AT .380 ACP (8 oz).

The felt recoil on Walther blowback is not too bad, but the muzzle really wants to flip up. The J-frame is downright unpleasant. Surprisingly, the Kel-Tec, despite being the smallest and less than half the weight of the others, is by far the most controllable.

Fixed barrels do seem to improve accuracy over most locked breached pistols, though.

 

[RyanM]

That said, perceived recoil is another kettle of fish. First of all, the motion of the slide tends to spread the recoil impulse out over time, which tends to reduce our perception of recoil. So in comparing the three we would find:

1. The revolver has no slide, and nothing to spread recoil out over time. Its recoil will be perceived as sharper.

2. The locked breech pistol will spread out the recoil in time, but has more resistance to motion so will fall between the blowback and the revolver in terms of perceived recoil.

3. The blowback, where the resistance of the slide is governed only by its mass and the strength of the recoil spring will have the lowest perceived recoil.

That's accurate if you're measuring relative amount of "shove." If you're measuring the "snap" of the recoil, 2 and 3 are reversed.

Locked breech pistols usually have less perceived recoil acceleration (snap) because the slide velocity is lower, because it gets slowed down by the weight of the barrel for a short distance, and the action of unlocking. Final recoil velocity is the same all else being equal, but locked breech pistols will reach that speed slower than blowback pistols, which are slower than revolvers. Try firing a Hi-Point or other blowback 9mm pistol compared to a locked-breceh one. Ouch.

It's a lot like heavy recoil springs vs. light recoil springs. Light recoil springs reduce muzzle flip but increase snap, while heavy springs do the opposite...