Recoil precived or real is up to the person doing the shooting.I remember training the men going to Viet Nam on our combat rifle ranges.Stateside Marines still carried and used the M-14 then.When these men got orders to V.N. their training was done with the AR15.Myself and a few other instructors would show the lack of recoil by holding the rifle to our chin and dumping a full mag on auto with no ill effects.Of course anything past about five rounds with the new folks and with shoulder mount the rifle climbed to the sky.All could hold it level but their mind said they were being pushed so their body complyed. With a little help each man could hold the full mag on target.No matter if your body is being pricked with a stright pin or the tip of a Bowie your brain says you are being stabed and your body reacts the same in both cases.Recoil is what you do with it.Take a M-60 mounted on top of a jeep and let her rip,the jeep jumps all over the place and you say what recoil. On the other hand it is easy enoght to hold a M-60 along side the hip and let her rip with just abit of twisting motion.The same holds true with the fifty.Poor gun fit will make a gun feel like its kicking the heck out of you but its just the stock saying hi because of its design like the 101 trap guns.The gun itself kicks no harded than any other gun of the same weight and load.Now the one 460 Weatherby I shot made my teeth hurt and my mind now says it might in any gun of that caliber I shoot so I go from 458 stright to 500 and forget about the 460

Poor stock fit doesn't increase recoil, but it sure can increase kick - felt recoil - big time. Shoot a few rounds of skeet with a gun that has too much pitch or stock drop, and your cheek bone's gonna get real tender, Amigo.

i like jeff coopers thoughts on recoil. said he couldn't understand all the fuss. couldn't we just ignore it?

the only thing i've ever shot that hurt was an interarms whitworth 458 and that really good looking skinny classic british express stock plus the way too small barrel added up to sub 8# weight and pain. next 458 was a post-64 m70 which was barely over 8# but very good stock design and recoil was never an issue.

heaviest kickers i've shot are a 500 jeffery i built on a p14 enfield action. 11# and i've shot it 10rds off a bench with no more ill effects than fatigue. and i've got a ruger #1 i built into a 500-3" nitro. it finished up barely over 9# before i added some weight to the stock and while recoil was fast beyond imagination with the muzzle way above 45 degrees up i afterward took stock: no broken bones sticking out, no blood, no detached corneas, no bruising, no physical damage of any sort, which told me adverse reactions to recoil are either cumulative fatigure or all in someones head.

was some young guy at cabelas once trying to impress the buddy with him. told him the 270 weatherby was a big rifle and recoil was so severe he wouldn't even be able to stand firing it. i didn't say anything but i sure wanted to. THAT's the main reason Americans are bothered by recoil: for their whole lives they've had buddies, gun writers, etc telling them that recoil was a problem.

roger

My Whitworth 458 was my favorit gun untill I relized there was no way I could keep the stock together. The thin stock looked great but every few rounds the bridges would be broken out,Even ran a bolt up through the pistol grip to the action and it didn't help.Cheap RamLine stock and sold it.

yeah, they really had the look right on those but apparently used the same barrel OD as on the 375's. they make good 375's. mine, it shed the front sight hood on shot #1. by the end of my first shooting session - maybe half a box - it had split the stock behind the recoil lug, thru the web behind the magazine, and about 2" down into the wrist. i acraglassed it all back together and put 1.5# of lead in the forend and buttstock. after that it stayed together and was a lot more comfortable but by then i was totally soured on it. the m70 was way mo' better.

roger

and i think i buried a hidden crossbolt down into the wrist and another behind the mag box ala jack lott's recommendation.

i think it already had a crossbolt behind the recoil lug but as lott noted the thin sides of the stock by the mag box bow out like an accordian under recoil and the thin areas around the trigger just can't take it.

roger

Much like my CZ550 'Medium' the Whitworth of Yugoslavia through England was a clunker. It's about 25% rifle of the Heym .375 I used to own.

i've owned a half dozen of the CZ's counting one of the old ZKK's in 375. still have a 550 in 416 rigby and they've all been outstanding. zero malfunctions and far more accurate than they had any right to be and none were finicky about loads.

roger

The CZ Whitworth guns I've had were great except for the failure of the 458 stock

Amigo Will, your story of cranking off a mag full of AR-15 with the butt held to your chin with no ill effects reminds me of a wager I won about 25 years ago. I and a group of buddies were at the camp for a little R&R, and during a poker game, buddy Bob made the statement that the .22 LR was the only gun that had no recoil. I countered that he was full of it, as usual, and the discussion began in earnest. He made his case, and I cited Newtons' Law, etc., and we bet $5.00 on who was right. Now the problem was how would we prove it? At the time, I had a collection of old single shot .22 cal. boys rifles such as Favorites, Rem. no. 4's, Hamiltons, etc., and I had just acquired a Stevens Little Scout No. 14 1/2 which weighs all of 3 lbs., and had it along for the trip to test fire it. We all marched out back and I loaded it and asked him to put its' steel buttplate on his chin and fire. Before he shot, I stopped him and asked him to hold it about 1/4" from his chin, which he did, When he fired, he almost dropped the gun, grabbed his chin, and moaned over and over through clenched teeth, "My chin... I broke my f---ing chin." I held out my hand and said, "You owe me $5.00." I would not classify Bob as a cupcake with a glass jaw. I do not know what design in the recoil cycle of an AR-15 would defy the laws of physics, but I saw Bobs' reaction to the recoil of a very light .22 rifle, collected my $5.00, and am not willing to try this one at home.

Keith its all about Marine Corps pride.You bet the gun does recoil but if held correctly and you know whats about to happen there is no ill effects from doing it four days a week for sixteen months.I assure you physics were not defied just a small amont of recoil tolerated for what it was.Remember a mouse trap snapping on your finger don't realy hurt it just suprises you

It's nice to read about real hunters using real hunting rifles.

Thanks for a bit of refreshing reality, Keith!

Probably needed to be there

"Felt" recoil includes a lot of factors that cannot be measured. The late Bob Brister commented that one of the very best recoil reducers is a good pair of ear plugs. The less "boom" you hear, the less it seems to kick.

holding a gun against something and firing it and holding it away from the same thing and letting it get a running go and slamming into it are 2 entirely different things. i've not tried firing an AR held against my chin but i wouldn't hesitate to do so. however, i also would not be so stupid as to hold it in FRONT of my chin and fire it. best analogy: try driving a nail by pushing on it.

i'll have to double check the next time i talk to my dad but if i remember right, he said in basic training the instructors showed them how they shouldn't be afraid of the recoil of a garand by putting the butt plate against their foreheads and firing it.

roger

The cumulative effect of recoil is indeed 'all in your head' (and cervical & upper thoracic spine, shoulders, and vestibular system) and it's called repetitive traumatic brain injury
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/tbi.htm
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tbi/tbi.htm
Muhammad Ali, lots of former NHL players, and soldiers are examples of the result. And those with previous traumatic brain injury are much more sensitive to additional trauma. Being 'afraid of the recoil' is not the problem experienced shooters are fighting.

both those articles seem to specifically address blows to the head. shooting a firearm under normal circumstances doesn't produce a blow to the head. my shoulder and torso take that jolt. the only force transmitted to my head is whiplash from a badly fitting or badly held gun. neither of my 500's have ever given me the slightest case of shooters headache (i.e. whiplash). however a ruger #1 in 458 is particularly bad in that regard. the factory #1 stock is not very good for heavy recoiling calibers.

roger

Roger: I'm suggesting that we show a bit more understanding and grace to those who, for whatever reason (which is likely none of our business), are 'recoil sensitive.'
The video of the Olympic Men's Skeet final is still up
http://www.nbcolympics.com/video/player....nelcode=sportsh
Watch the movement of the shooter's head in response to the light loads. The accumulative effect is indeed 'blows to the head', and the results are measurable by neuropsychiatric testing, though certainly variable between individuals.

One of the guys at my club loaned some of the machine guns that were used in the movies, Rambo and Predator and many others. He was talking about it a few months ago and said they had to rig the actors somehow as they were firing the machine guns because the guns would just spin them right around. At one time this guy had over 1000 machine guns and had his home installed with a burglar alarm that could gas a burglar entered his basement. I have heard several police comment on his house and they were almost afraid of near it on a burglar call.

Another thing that gets me is watching American Rifleman or a similar show. They had a show which they said the AR-15 was invented because the M-14 would climb to the sky on a full automatic burst and an AR-15 wouldn't. Then watch someone shoot an AR-15 sometime and watch it climb, too.

Explains why I'm 100% brain damaged by the VA.Never try the chin trick with the M-14 different aminals from different worlds. The AR back then would only fire 18 rounds in a mag,poor spring. Total time for a mag to fire less than a second.Strong hand on pistol grip forward hand on top of handguard realy no big deal.Jimmy thats hollywood for you actors that never served.Love watching the hero blink every time they fire a gun Mel Gibson is the worst. He must load the MG with stout blanks for sure to make the guns cycle.Haveing worked FX on a couple flix most MG guns are run on air some on blanks.I remember a few years ago one actor killed another by shooting him in the head with a blank,not toys even in hollywierd.

rev, yeah there are people with physical limitations that cause sensitivity to recoil. after neck surgery my father can't handle long recoil auto's altho gas guns and winchester model 50's and 59's aren't a problem. oddly, 3" mag 20's out of a 7# sxs doesn't bother him either. but most people don't shoot so much they suffer from cumulative problems. a box of 30-06's a year because they have to to sight in and no more because it hurts them. that's purely psychological.

the shooters in the olympics or any other serious clays competition, how many hundreds of thousands of rounds have they fired yet they're so un-hampered by it they can stand there and compete successfully at the world level. doesn't seem to be having that much effect on them.

Amigo, you may be thinking of john eric hexum (spelling?) on some show but that was back in the '80's i think. he shot himself w/ a blank out of an m29 S&W IIRC. showing out, playing russian roulette with the harmless gun loaded with blanks. and lost. guns & ammo magazine did a good article back when there were some real gun writers on the damage blanks can do.

roger

I think your right about the 29,big blank for sure.Time sure goes by fast.

Yeah Amigo Will, that was a Kodak moment. I haven't taken the time to actually weigh that Stevens Little Scout and calculate the recoil energy and velocity, but assuming it is a mere 1 1/2 ft./lbs., that would be something like tilting your chin back and allowing a (GOOD ?) friend to drop a 24 ounce framing hammer onto it from a height of one foot. I know people who would gladly do that for $5.00 or even a beer, but I prefer to be a spectator to those events. Many of those folks are called Darwin Award Nominees for some reason. In college, I once voluntarily put on some gloves and jumped into a boxing ring with a Golden Gloves champ who had KO'd the NCAA light heavyweight champ a week before. After I staggered him with a good right to the nose, he shook it off and proceeded to give me a boxing lesson I will never forget. I then realized I should get good grades as I would never make a living boxing. Still, after the cuts in my mouth healed, I went back and sparred with him several more times, but I would not voluntarily put that little .22 a 1/4 inch off my chin and pull the trigger having "been there" to see the effects. Maybe some time I'll tell you guys about the time I snuck into the same buddys' bunk room at camp and changed his alarm clock to go off 5 hours early so that he woke at midnite and started dressing and cooking breakfast. I was not rotten enough to also change the time on his watch and allow him to go out into the woods, only to wonder why it was still dark at 9:00 AM, but I'm still lucky he didn't shoot me over that one.

Anyone remember the C.B. Colby books from his grade school library (probably long since quietly removed by the antis)? Really piqued my interest in guns as a kid. I'll never forget the page on the Thompson SMG with a photo of a "rugged Army sargeant" firing one full auto off his chin to show the recruits there was nothing to be afraid of. Nor will I ever forget the closing line of the M-14 entry: "an awesome weapon for the forces of democracy" or some such. If I knew where to find a full set of those books now I'd pay good money for them.

I'd guess that traumatic brain injuries to soldiers aren't the result of firing the M-16. Lots of them have come home from Iraq and Afghanistan with those types of injuries, generally caused by proximity to an IED or something else with a very large blast. Depending on the individual and the injury, shooting might be a problem for them.

i thought i was the only one who remembered c.b. colby books! almost decided i'd imagined them. i read and re-read every one the library i frequented had. just for nostalgia alone i'd likewise not mind a set. one thing i remember was the comments on the m16's round penetrating a car's engine block or shooting end for end thru a car (which is mostly thin sheet metal and empty space) and wondering how anybody could stand the recoil of such a powerful round as that. HAH!

roger

I think the idea behind the .223 was to wound with a shot and therefore take up extra troops careing for the wounded.The not thinking part was makeing the selector switch so no one recived a single shot but many tiny holes.
I have just in the last month or so read of a new round 458 something for blowing big holes durning close combat for the AR of the week. It appears the goverment has just decovered a new supper round for combat.No joke its basicaly the 45-70 with different case head.I would guess the new 7.62 NATO can't be far behind for these ammo inventing wisards.

Will- If the .458 round you're discussing is the one I'm thinking of, it's been around since 1962. Frank Barnes invented it to duplicate 45/70 ballistics in a short action (722)test rifle. The logic was it could be used in other rifles to accomplish whatever the goal was. Didn't shoot a whole lot of cinder blocks in Viet Nam. At any rate, it became the .458x2" or the .458 American. Seems like I saw one for sale in Alaska. Cheap.

Will, wounding rather than killing wasn't the theory behind the .223. There were various reasons, one of which is that the lighter the ammo, the more of it one can carry--which is particularly important if one's weapon has full auto capability. And it's interesting to note that many other countries, including our Cold War opponents the Russians, also went with smaller, higher velocity calibers.

What Larry says is the way I remember it being promoted. Another reason is because of the relatively light recoil, it was easier to teach the troops to shoot it well.

Well it was a good idea but in the outfit I was with you had to carry at least 20 mags or 400 rounds no matter what gun you chose to pack.To my thinking it took about twice as many .223 rounds to do the work of the 7.62 plus the gun was worthless as a cane.Best part of the AR was you couldn't get in trouble about rust on your rifle as it didn't rust,it was discololation and the Gunny hated it when you pointed it out.

Larry and Jim are right. The weight soldiers had to carry was a main concern. Although, I watched an Americam Rifle type show (that was naming the top ten military rifles in the world) not long ago where they were shooting the M-16 at concrete blocks. It only took two or three rounds for the block to explode into pieces. Plus they were very accurate at long distances. If you remember the trial not long ago of the soldiers who were accused of shooting prisoners through the head and torturing them- they found out later that they were were shooting them from three hundred yards off. Very accurate at long distances. I heard they have recently made a larger round now for the M-16 in 3.16 caliber(or something like that- I can't remember). But next to the AR-15, the M-16 is considered by most to be the second best assault weapon ever. The only reason the AR-15 is considered the best is because it is almost indestructable, so many are made and they are easy to get parts for, parts easily interchange, they very seldom fail due to dirt and sand, etc.

3.16 caliber would be a bullet 3.16 inches in diameter. and you do know the AR-15 and M16 are the same gun except the AR is the semi-automatic commercial equivalent? saying the m16 is second best to the AR15 is like saying a garand is as good as a garand. i wasn't aware the m16 had such a sterling reputation for holding up in sand and dust. i thought the reverse was more true, requiring more than ordinary care.

I think Jimmy just mixed up the AR-15 and the M-14...Geo

We were issued M-14's when I went to Vietnam in 1965,but my outfit,3rd Reconnaissance battalion, was pretty lenient about what you could carry as long as you could get ammunition for it. One of our platoon leaders carried a ak-47 another a Swedish K and one had an m-16 that he had obtained in a trade somewhere. This was before the marines were issued any m-16's.I liked the penetration of the 308 bullet as opposed to the .223. I suppose every advantage has a corresponding downside,but I want something that will penetrate more than I was concerned about weight.I was the radio operator and I carried 80 pounds plus,verified weight,when I was on patrol. i weighed 165 pounds then and did not know what being tired was when not actually on patrol,I was in outstanding shape as I had to be.I really like the M-14 and bought a Springfield M1A when they came out.

RHD45 I was with First Force Recon co.7-66 through 7-68 DongHa,DaNang and Hue

Yeah, I kind of thought so from some of your previous postings. We worked closely with 1st Force as you know and some of our guys ended up with Force . Do you remember a Sgt. Lefthand? or a kid named Fleishmen? They were both badly wounded with Ist Force. I wanted to go be in Ist Force but so bad I could taste it but ended up with 3rd Battalion and when my buddy was killed never followed up in being reassigned.Sure was a lot of hard work but with the greatest people I have ever known,for the most part.I still have my "Alice" pack and a lot of my other gear,the guys sent it to me when I rotated.I loved seeing the country and wildlife when not being occupied with staying alive.I'd love to go back and get lost in the area weat of Danang known as "Charlie Ridge".Still looking for the 30 foot python we were always worried about stepping on.