Recoil question

[Reloadron]

If we look to SAAAMI and their paper on FREE RECOIL ENERGY we can pretty much see what contributes to recoil and by how much. That gets you the FRE and that will get us to the "Felt Recoil" which effects all of us differently. The .308 Winchester spawned several cartridges like not only the 243 Win but the .260 Remington and the 7-08 Remington. Felt Recoil may be lessened through devices like a "limb saver" and various butt plates. Obviously looking at the formula a heavier rifle helps. If you roll your own a powder like H4895 can be downloaded quite a bit and still deliver out to 200 yards. While I would not suggest a chamber adapter as was mentioned there is the option of another rifle chambered in the 7.62 X 39 cartridge which is quite effective out to the 200 yards you mention.

Ron

 

[hdwhit]

ATLDave wrote:
...perhaps for precisely that reason.

I asked the question so that I wouldn't have to speculate on his reasoning.

 

[ATLDave]

Your question was about whether he could make the shots at 150 yards with a .223. The OP said he doesn't want to use a .223: "I am leery of using 223 Rem out to 150 yards deer hunting."

In case we're having a semantics problem, "leery" means untrusting or suspicious. IOW, the OP has already said he doesn't trust .223 out to 150.

 

[hdwhit]

Balrog wrote:
Assuming recovery, I will be able to make shots at 150 yards. I always have been before.
If under 100 yds I am ok with 223 I think. Just not sure 150 yards is good with 223.
So the question is 243 or 223. I already have other rifles in 223.

You didn't specify in your original post, but I suspected from your description that it might have been a torn retina. Glad to hear they could tack it with the laser. The repair should be permanent, but you are correct that you are susceptible to it happening in the other eye and heavy recoil is not your friend.

One option that I haven't seen mentioned is to go to .223 for the lighter recoil and just limit yourself to only taking shots within, say, 100 yards where you can be pretty confident you won't have to chase a wounded deer through the woods.

 

[hdwhit]

ATLDave wrote:
...the OP has already said he doesn't trust .223 out to 150.

But is the "lack of trust" due to concern about the terminal ballistics of the .223 at 150 yards or his ability to accurately place the shot at 150 yards? Simply saying someone is "leery" about using a .223 does not answer that distinction.

 

[ATLDave]

So the purpose of the question was to screen his competence and, if possible, affirmatively recommend a .223 if he's a good shot?

 

[Balrog]

I can make a 150 yd shot. I do not feel comfortable with 223 beyond 150yds, and would be more comfortable around 100 yards which is about the longest shot distance where I hunt anyway. A 150 yard shot would be possible but less likely due to underbrush. My concern with the distance beyon 100-150 yards is related to the terminal ballistics of 223 Remington, not ability to shoot that far.

 

[fpgt72]

Do you have a friend that has one...only way you are going to know is if YOU try it.

 

[coloradokevin]

I have developed an eye problem and don't want to shoot 308 Winchester or 30-06 any more because of fear of exacerbating it. I would still like to be able to deer hunt out to 150 yards.

I know what recoil from a 308 bolt action is like. I know what 223 Remington recoil is like from an AR.

Where would 243 Winchester lie recoil wise between those two from a bolt action?

I am leery of using 223 Rem out to 150 yards deer hunting.

There's no easy answer to the question of recoil, since other factors like rifle weight and muzzle brakes play a role in the equation, too.

That said, all else being equal, a .243 Win has less recoil than a .308 Win, and more than a .223.

If I were you I'd move to a heavier gun with a muzzle brake or suppressor in one of the 6-6.5mm offerings (which includes the .243). My competition rifle is a .260 Remington, and it has very little felt recoil. The rifle is heavy, I shoot it with a suppressor that threads over the muzzle brake, and the 140 grain projectiles from that rifle weigh less than the 175 grain projectiles I fire from my .308 Win (which has no muzzle brake and weighs half as much). When I shoot the .260 Remington with the suppressor on it I feel like I'm shooting a .22LR. When I shoot the .308 Win I get sore after a 40+ round range session (but it's a light gun pushing heavy-for-caliber bullets fairly fast). A .243 Win will have no trouble taking deer. I consider my .260 Remington every bit as capable as a .308 Win at dropping large game (and it actually has more energy further downrange than the .308 Win).

Incidentally, my current load for the .260 Remington maintains 1400 ft/lbs of energy out to about 580 yards. The projectile stays supersonic beyond 1500 yards.

 

[Buck13]

Is increased muzzle blast from a muzzle brake also a risk factor? I know I can feel muzzle blast from carbine-length rifles in the next lane. Never thought about whether it could have a physical effect.

 

[1911 guy]

You're talking about your eyes. Personally, I'd roll all the recommendations into one. Get a .243 or similar recoiling cartridge in a heavier rifle and install a good recoil pad. Or add weight to your current rifle, install the recoil pad and shoot reduced recoil loads.

 

[MidRoad]

7mm-08 with a good recoil pad may be something to consider. 12lbs or recoil with 140s in a 7.5 poind rifle vs 15.5 of a .308 shooting 150 grain.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm

Dont just consider energy though, look at the velocity as well.

 

[Gtscotty]

The eye problem has been treated. Torn retina treated with laser. Vision will be back to baseline in 2-4 weeks. It runs the risk of recurring on either side. So I want to minimize recoil. Ophthalmologists are non committal on how much impact recoil may have on recurrence. I don't want it to happen again so don't see why I would want to take the chance. Better to shoot a lighter recoiling rifle than go blind in an eye.

I am located in GA. Figure 150 pound deer is about average.

Assuming recovery, I will be able to make shots at 150 yards. I always have been before.

If under 100 yds I am ok with 223 I think. Just not sure 150 yards is good with 223.

So the question is 243 or 223. I already have other rifles in 223.

I used to hunt Ga, I used a 6.8 SPC AR-15 to good effect one year. 110 gr Accubonds @ 2,650 kill deer well and don't kick much at all, especially in an AR. Parts, mags and ammo are all easily available and relatively cheap. If you already have a lower, you're only an upper, bolt and magazine away from being in business.

If you prefer a bolt gun, I'd recommend a .243, or 6.5 Creed ( with lighter 120gr bullets) in a somewhat heavier rifle, something like a Tikka CTR, Weatherby Vanguard, Winchester Sporter, Howa, etc.

You don't really need anything terribly powerful, Ga deer are delicious, but modestly sized

 

[Bottom Gun]

I hunt with everything from .22 magnum to .338 Win but the .223 is my favorite cartridge. They have made great progress with .224 diameter bullets lately. The 65 gr Sierra Game King is my favorite. The Winchester 64 gr Power Point and the 62 and 64 gr Fusion or Gold Dots are excellent as well. All are controlled expansion designed for medium game and quite accurate even in older rifles like mine with a 1/12 twist. They have worked fine on deer for me.

Unless you particularly want one, before you spend any money on new rifle, why not try testing some of the controlled expansion bullets like the ones I mentioned? Set up a row of water filled gallon jugs at 150 yards and shoot them. See how many jugs it penetrates and hopefully you will be able to recover the bullet and inspect it. I think you will be pleasantly surprised. All it will cost you is the price of a box of ammo. I think factory ammo is readily available with those bullets. If not and you know someone who reloads, maybe you can talk them into loading up a box or two for you.

I have a nice .308 that is a real tack driver but if I was to go out for deer tomorrow, I would use my good old Bofors Sako .223 with the 65 gr Sierra bullets instead because it will do a fine job.

Best of luck to you.

 

[Water-Man]

http://www.accuratereloading.com/recoil.html

 

[Varminterror]

Have you considered trying out a specialty pistol? A 7mm-08 in a TC Encore Pistol, 30-30 in a Contender pistol, 7BR in an old XP100, 243win in a Savage Striker... Any of these will get you to 150yrds (and far beyond). The Strikers were even repeaters. Specialty pistols eliminate direct cheek and shoulder connection to the recoil, but still have ample power for taking game at typical hunting ranges.

A 6.5 Grendel or 6.8SPC AR might be another option - also available in pistol format, and also both packing enough power for 150yrd deer hunting.

 

[Klint Beastwood]

You could kill a deer at 150y easy with a .223 using a higher grain, higher bc bullet. Or the fusion MSR's work pretty good too. I would't go any less than 62 grains, and a 18in barrel. I was testing a 16 barrel, with the horandy 75 gr bthp and the 77gr sierra match kings a few years ago, they lost a lot of their terminal performance at about 400y. With the 18 in barrel and the hornady 73gr ELD-x they worked well in some water jugs at 400, about a 1.5 in exit...so maybe keep it in 300y to be safe.

 

[Goosey]

I like the 6.8 SPC idea.

It's fairly powerful and has a decent number of bullets which are designed specifically for the 6.8. It also has a light recoil impulse, even compared to the .243. Can get it in some bolt guns if you can find one.

Compare to a .30-30 carbine or a shorter-barreled .243:

6.8 SPC: 120 SST at 2,460 ft/s retains 1,207 ft lb energy at 150 yards (16" barrel).

.30-30: 150 gr Core Lokt at 2,275 ft/s retains 932 ft lb energy at 150 yards (20" barrel).

.243: 100 gr Core Lokt at 2,800 ft/s retains 1,295 ft lb energy at 150 yards (20" barrel).


I think that's adequate.

 

[T.R.]

My .308 produced excessive and annoying muzzle jump every time it was fired. So I shipped the carbine to Magna-Port in Michigan where they formed four slots near the muzzle. The blueing was not marred at all. Result: no more muzzle jump plus reduced recoil. Cost was about $135. Go for it!

TR

 

[Legionnaire]

Good advice above. I'll summarize my thinking.

First option is to see what you can do to reduce recoil with your .308. Lighter bullets mean less recoil. While 150-168 grain bullets are the sweet spot for .308 deer rifles, there are several factory loads in the 120-130 grain range. And there are several factory loadings specifically designed for reduced recoil. Adding a compensator (or Magna-Porting) can further reduce recoil. And you might replace or otherwise add weight to your current rifle stock. Finally, you might consider reloading; it isn't all that expensive to start hand loading for a single rifle cartridge, and then you could customize your loads to your heart's content. All of these would keep you shooting .308 with significantly reduced felt recoil.

If you are going to buy another rifle, a full-sized .243 with a medium weight barrel would be just the ticket. The .243 is an excellent round on medium-sized game. All my kids who hunt started out with a .243, and my daughter still prefers it to others. It is also quite capable of long-range accuracy against varmints or steel. If you think that your days shooting the .308 are over, I'd sell that rifle and buy a .243.