Remington "Reduced Recoil"??

[dfariswheel]

I'm having some serious shoulder problems, and firing standard buckshot loads is getting to be just too painful to pursue.

Firing a standard buck load in a real HD situation will, of course, not be a problem, but I do need to practice.

It would be nice to conduct practice with a reduced amount of pounding my poor shoulder is taking, and if the Remington ammo is effective, I'd consider using it for actual HD.

Remington now sells "Reduced Recoil" loads, and the two I've given some thought to are the 8-pellet 00, and the 27 pellet #4.

Remington indicates that the 8-pellet 00 load has 40% less recoil.
I'm assuming the shell still has the same "power" and isn't a "reduced effectiveness" load, other than the one less pellet.

Does anyone know if the #4 load, which has the same 27 pellets as a standard Express load, still offer that much reduction in recoil, and is it still nearly as effective as the standard #4 buck load?

I'd be interested in any experience with the Reduced Loads as to just how much "perceived" recoil reduction there is, and the effectiveness.

 

[Zak Smith]

I haven't tried the Remington reduced recoil, but I've tried the following in my Benelli (for 3Gun):

Winchester Heavy game loads,
Winchester Light target #7.5 AA127 (1 1/8 oz),
S&B #4 and #00 Buck,
Federal "Maximum" slugs,
Federal "tactical" (read: reduced recoil) #4 Buck and Slugs.

Of all those, the Win Light #7.5 and the Federal "Tactical" loads all had substantially less recoil than the others listed. The "maximum" slugs and all the "heavy" loads including the S&B had much more recoil and were painful after shooting a bunch.

Winchester's "Low Recoil / Low Noise" loads would not even unlock the Benelli's bolt.

-z

 

[Zak Smith]

By the way, I found that the 1 1/8 would still operate my gun reliably, and have acceptibly little recoil, even in the inertia-operated M1S90. I can shoot box after box of the AA127's (Win "Light Target") or the Federal Tactical. Contrast that I find the "heavy game" loads punishing.

-z

 

[CWL]

I am a big fan of Federal reduced recoil ammo loads. Have seen consistent patterning after testing in the hundreds of rounds (maybe thousand) fired.

Have heard (and I readily admit it is secondhand) than Remington's reduced recoil does not pattern as consistently.

 

[9mmMike]

I am not familiar with the Remington reduced recoil stuff but I have shot a bunch of Federal in 00, 000, #4 and slugs and it is very easy-shooting ammo.
I buy mine from
Eric at AMMOMAN

Mike

 

[Rat-30]

I haven't used the 'reduced recoil buck' still stuck on Fed Premium, but the Remington reduced-recoil slugs are just what I need. I'll have a hard time going back..

I highly reccomend the Remington Reduced-Recoil Slugs.

All the best.

 

[DML]

The Remington 8 pellet load definately produces less recoil then most other 00 buck. How much less the perceived recoil actually is, is an individual thing. I find Estate 00 SWAT shells to have less recoil then Federal Tactical. I once had some Brenneke reduced recoil slugs that felt like 20 ga.

Most agencies that I know of only use the Remington 8 pellet load for training and full power loads in the field. For HD use. I doubt that a "goblin" will complain that he was hit with only 8 pellets instead of 9.

 

[dport]

I've actually used the Remingtion RR 8 pellet 00 buck. It patterned quite nicely, at 25 yards it was patterning 12-14" out of a cyl bore barrel, and reliably cycled my Remingtion 1100. I did some limited testing with my Benelli M4 and it also cycled the action reliably.

As with most shot/gun combinations YMMV. My Remington absolutely hated the Federal RR buckshot. Patterns were 20-24" at 25 yards, the 9th pellet creating a flyer.

Judging from my experience loads with 8 pellets, the Remington and the Hornady (Hornady rounds WILL NOT cycle semi-autos) produce significantly tighter patterns than their 9 pellet bretheren.

 

[dfariswheel]

Thanks all, that's exactly what I was needing to know.

Since my gun is an 870 Police model, and is an actual inside the house defense gun, patterning at longer ranges isn't an issue.

I'll try some of the 8 pellet Remington loads, and some of the #4's as soon as I can, and report back.

 

[another okie]

I've shot and patterned several of the reduced recoil buck loads, though only one reduced recoil slug load. All the reduced loads patterned better, but they do this by reducing feet per second. Lower velocity down the barrel distorts the shot less. You are giving up some stopping power. No such thing as a free lunch. Whether the reduced power matters in your situation is up to you.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Reduced recoil = Reduced velocity = Reduced effectiveness.

If you could get equal performance with that much less recoil, due you think many folks would be buying the full recoil loads? Only the semi-auto shooters would want it so that it would cycle their guns properly. Everyone else would go with the reduced recoil. Unfortunately, it isn't going to be as effective, hence it is not their #1 load.

Just imagine, if you could get 40% less recoil with shotguns, you could have .45 acp shooting like 9 mm in terms of recoil. If the effectiveness would not be lower, that would revolutionize pistol shooting! Pistol shooting isn't getting revolutionized anytime soon.

I don't know where they get the idea that it is 40% less recoil. It is less, but does not feel that much reduced compared to the regular stuff. No doubt you should be able to shoot more of it, however.

 

[aquapong]

I'm a pretty thin guy and I don't have much mass to take the recoil of buckshot. I just bought a Winchester 1200 the other day. I shot 5 rounds of 00 buckshot from PMC out of it today. Not only did none of the 5 shells extract properly, they really were not very nice to my shoulder. Forget follow ups or switching to second targets very quickly, I had to reshoulder the gun first.

I got some #4 heavy birdshot as well. I tried a box of that with better results. It was stout, but still quite managable recoil. I've personally seen #6 shot penetrate an car door, so I don't really subscribe to the "buckshot or bust" mentality. I'm sure #4 will be plenty of firepower for two legged varmints, even if they are wearing heavy clothing.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

If you could get equal performance with that much less recoil, due you think many folks would be buying the full recoil loads?

The pellets in the federal low recoil load are going 1180 FPS, and there are 9 of them. how much faster does a "normal" 9 pellet buck round go? Not that much faster.

 

[Arkady]

Their is a distinct velocity decrease in the Reduced Recoil loads. Of course, there is also a distinct reduction in recoil. And i mean DISTINCT.

The slugs are traveling 1200 fps instead of 1600 fps, for instance. Yes, reduced recoil = reduced power = reduced effectiveness, but even at 1200 fps those slugs are still developing 1400 ft/lbs of energy, and producing a .72 caliber hole. The fact that i can nail a coke can at 35 yards with them out of my cylinder bored Mossberg doesn't hurt.

It's like getting shot simultaneously with 4 9mms instead of 7. What a loss...

 

[wunderkind]

Double naught,

The Reduced Recoil phenomenon is attributed in no small part to law enforcement needs. There was a market for it, and the ammo companies gladly obliged.

Today's LEO's, just like everyone else, are less likely all the time to come from a gun-savvy backround.

And diversity in hiring has led to the same weapons being issued to 6'5" former college athletes as to 5'3" 110 lb. female hires.

As a rule, a dept will issue the exact same duty rounds to everyone for continuity and liability. So the lower-recoil (and lower power) rounds rule the roost in LEO circles.

No slam AT ALL against female LEO's-the same comment would apply to a small male.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Guys, I fully understand that reduced recoil loads have their place and that even with reduced recoil and less velocity, the rounds are still significant. The problem queried by dfariswheel was relevant to 40% reduced recoil but no reduction in velocity or effectiveness and that just is not the case.

As noted, the reduced recoil loads make it more user-friendly for inexperienced or lighter weight individuals to make use of the 12 ga. shotgun. For experienced shooters, the reduced recoil helps reduce time between shots as the gun can be settled back on target quicker.

The concept of reduced recoil also needs to be considered in regard to product line. Depending on the product line, what is considered full power versus reduced recoil can be confusing. The notion of the round being reduced is really only relevant within a given line. Fiocchi's reduced recoil 00 buck is stated at 1150 fps versus 1300 fps for their full power loads. That is a reduction to 89% of the full power loads. The reduced recoil Fiocchi is still 5 fps faster than regular full power Speer Lawman 00 buck, however.

Is the reduction in velocity significant in regard to the target? That all depending on a variety of factors. Depending on the gun and choke, various brands and loads behave differently. That may affect pattern shape, pattern uniformity, and pattern size. It is conceiveable that for a given gun, the hoped for ideal may be with the full power loads or may be with the reduced power loads. That is something left tested by shooter and gun and the results may be hugely significant for shooting at the distant effective end of the shell's abilities. Up close, the effect by the concentrated patterns of close range and for full power or reduced power loads will undoubtedly still be devastating. Assuming similar capabilities between loads, the full power loads will do the same job as their reduced power loads of the same brand at greater distances.

I have shot the full and reduced loads from Remington. I did not find that the 40% less recoil resulted in 40% less felt recoil.

 

[dfariswheel]

So, we're back to my original question: Does Remington's Reduced Recoil ammo produce a significant reduction in FELT recoil?

Ammo effectiveness or patterning with a buckshot load will not be a factor in a HD gun that will not be used beyond 10 yards AT MOST.

Again, this is an INSIDE the home HD gun. It's very unlikely I'd be called on to engage trouble outside the home with a shotgun. If things happen there, I'll be calling the sheriff and chambering a round in my AR-15 carbine.

The basic question is, will the Reduced Recoil actually allow PRACTICE and possible "Real world" defense use, and yet provide enough reduction that my badly damaged shoulder joint won't send me to the doctor's office every time I shoot.

As things stand now, the full-power standard buckshot loads ARE usable for HD, since if I'm called on to use the gun, shoulder pain would be the least of my problems. My wish is to find a SINGLE load that would be reduce recoil enough to allow a certain amount of practice with buckshot, not bird shot, and yet provide an effective HD capability.

Practice can be conducted with light bird shot loads, but this isn't an acceptable replacement for buckshot practice, and under NO circumstances will I depend on a bird shot HD load.

So:
1. Significant reduction or not?

2. More reduction with the 8-pellet #00 load than the 9-pellet #00 load?

3. More reduction with the 8-pellet #00 load than the 27-pellet #4 load?

 

[45auto]

I haven't shot those loads to comment by experience, but there is a good information on www.shotgunreport.com in the "update" section on recoil.

The study discusses free or real recoil reduction factors, not felt, which can be subjective. It is worthwhile reading since it details the obvious and "real" recoil reducers, i.e. reduction of velocity, shot weight and increase in gun weight.

The greatest reduction in recoil comes from a reduction in velocity, then shot weight a close second, gun weight a distant third and powder weight a lost 4th- so to speak.

A 25% reduction in velocity yields a 40% reduction in recoil for example.
These are mathmatical equations, so Remington should be able to do the math??

I don't know the specs of the Remington "reduced recoil", but I suspect if the velocity and/or shot weight is reduced quite a bit, then you should feel a substantial difference in recoil. I think you almost have to, all things being equal.

 

[Al Thompson]

I've shot the RR loads and they do reduce felt recoil. I also like having a good recoil pad on the SG and adding weight. My 870s have the sidesaddle on them for both the increase in capacity and the added weight.

I think that even with the reduced velocity, the buckshot is going fast enough to be effective for SD.

 

[Poodleshooter]

Reduced velocity=less volume of a faster powder=less cost to manufacture per round. At the same sale price, it's a good return for the companies who manufacture them. Can't say as it's a bad idea though. When I reload buckshot, I make some loads using lighter loads of trap powders to save money in the same way that factories do.

 

[dfariswheel]

A look at the Remington LE site shows the Reduced Recoil ammo velocity as follows:

#00 8-pellet velocity 1550
#00 9-pellet velocity 1500
#4 27-pellet velocity 1350

Standard Remington Express buck shot velocity is as follow:
#00 velocity1325
#4 velocity 1325

So it looks like the Reduced Recoil actually has HIGHER velocities than the standard Express.

Interestingly, Remington shows a LE NON-LEAD buckshot line that has much higher velocities.

I emailed Remington in an attempt to clear up the actual amount of reduction vs. effectiveness of the Reduced Recoil. I'll post the response.

 

[dfariswheel]

Here's Remington's response to my question.

Thank you for your recent inquiry. We have come up with the energy
produced by each of these shells. Keep in mind that this is RECOIL ENERGY
PRODUCED and is used only for comparison purposes.

#20642 - 8 Pellets - 71.52 ft. lbs
#20641 - 9 Pellets - 71.52 ft. lbs
#20447 - 21 Pellets - 62.38 ft. lbs.

I appears I misread Remington's web site when I thought I saw the # 4 buck #20447 as having 27 pellets.

I'm going to try some of the #00 and some of the #4 buck. I'll report back when I get some.

Anybody have recoil energy for STANDARD Remington Express buck shot??

 

[Bruce626]

Wow, lots of data on this thread.

My simple answer is that my comparison tests of Reduced Recoil Buck and Slugs DO in fact feel less recoil than full power loads.

Estate S.W.A.T 00 Buck (hard to get now) was the best patterning load in my particular SG and it felt waaaayyy better than any full power load. Remington RR Slugs, same thing.

I'm absolutely sure that my Estate RR Buck will suffice inside my home. I'm equally convinced that hitting an outside the home target with a .72 cal slug at 50, 75, or even 100 yards will be effective ( I've hit man sized metal targets with the Rem RR slugs at 114 yards consistently).

So, I go with the Reduced Recoil ammo that feels good and allows me to comfortably practice a lot and seems to work just fine.