Do revolvers kick more than pistols?

F

FUD

Moderator
I realize that recoil is very much a subjective thing (I have trouble telling the difference between a .380ACP and a 9mm Parabellum unless I fire them side by side), but do revolvers kick more than pistols?

Went down to the range today with my S&W 3913 and my Taurus 85 (in stainless steel). Both guns weigh about the same with maybe a slight edge going to the 85 since it is all steel while the 3913 has an alloy frame. Fired both guns side by side. According to the box that the ammo came in, the 9mm was a little bit hotter than the .38 special. That, combined with the fact that the 85 was slightly heavier, I was expecting a greater kick with the 3913 but found that the 85 seemed to have more of a kick to it.

The best way that I can describe it is that the pistol seems to distribute the recoil over the time period that the slide travels rearward (in that half second or quarter second or whatever it might be) while the recoil from the revolver seems to kick in all at once.

Share what you know, learn what you don't -- FUD
fud-nra.gif
 
Hi Fud.
The auto loader uses some of the energy to actuate the action; thus a slight loss of energy imparted to the projectile and slightly less actual recoil. Tough to compare unless using identical cartridges, with identical powder and bullet weights and identical bore size and finish. Throw in that the wheel gun will lose a slight amount of energy from the cylinder to bbl gap. Add any differences in grip and bore height and you end up with very subjective differences.

Sam...my favorite 9mm is the 9X32R
 
Hey FUD;

Why not grab a "Tiger By His Tail"? I'm talking about a Smith & Wesson Classic
Model 610 or 629? :eek: I know that you
are a S&W man, so go for the gusto!!! :D
These babies with full power loads will
"rock your sock's"!!! :)

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, Life Member N.R.A.
 
Fud,

Sam has it right. This is a complex physics problem, even for identical rounds. However, as you're aware, essentially the mass of revolvers and the auto-loading mechanics of semiautomatics tend to absorb recoil.
 
Dan, just like you never developed a liking for Smith autos (SIGs? right?), I never developed a liking for Smith revolvers. Actually, I'm pretty new to revolvers (bought my first pistol in 1981 and my first revlover in 1998) but I am thinking about getting a .454Casull before the year is out but I suspect that I'll be shooting .45 {long} Colt out of it initially. See ya at PPA (by the way, the range was closed this weekend and next weekend is bad for me so it will have to be the weekend after that -- that won't put me too far behind, will it?).
 
The main difference is grip height compared to bore line. The revolver's geometry precludes a very high grip which causes more muzzle flip. Muzzle flip is the main culprit instead of actual recoil.

With the semi-auto, you can grip higher (closer to bore line) which causes less flip. The gun tends to recoil straigher to the rear.

PPC shooters once experimented with a revolver that had the barrel mounted lower so it fired from the bottom of the cylinder instead of the top. The reason was to get the grip and the bore line closer together for less muzzle flip and faster follow up shots.

Mikey
 
The pistol uses some of the energy alright, but that is not the whole story.

Either gun imparts the same impulse as the bullet. That is force times time. The revolver gets it over with quickly and painfully in the time that the bullet accelerates. The pistol spreads the impuse over the time the slide is travelling.

If the recoil spring is not stiff enough, the slide will slam the frame. This event is capable of being worse than a revolver!

A stock Partriot spring is about right for 185 gr FMJ 7.6 gr AA#5. While max 45 acp is 10.2gr, +P is 10.8, 45 Super is 12.3 gr, and 460 Rowland is 14.5 gr. I have experemented with the higher loads and I got a flinch. Full house 44 mag loads in a relvolver never gave me a flinch. I had to make a 42 pound triple recoil spring to get rid of the flinch. That spring is about right for 10.3 gr, but it recuced the amount of slide slam.
 
Fud. At one time I had an S$W model 1917 in .45ACP, and a 1911A1, which of course was in .45ACP. I shot them together oneday, and my result was the 1917, firing the same GI issue hardball seemed to kick less than the 1911. However, I also felt that the action of the slide slamming back and forth seemed to increase the recoil on the 1911. I no longer have the 1917, but I still have a Ruger old model .45 with both "Long Colt" and ACP cylinders, and recoil in ACP in that one also feels a lot less.
Paul B.
 
Mikey's got it. Torque = force times the length of the lever arm. Revolvers have a longer lever arm than do self-loaders. So, more torque = more muzzle-flip.

For equal weight of guns, with identical cartridges, the rearward push of recoil will be the same.

And that's why the Weaver stance is a Good Thing. It's generally the best for control of muzzle-flip so that you can fire subsequent rounds and stay on target.

FWIW, Art
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top