Felt Recoil Differences?

B

Bowhunter57

New member
I would like to hear from those of you that have shot a straight stocked 45-70 vs. a pistol grip stock 45-70.

* Are there differences in felt recoil, between the two stock styles?

I'm considering the purchase of a Marlin 45-70, but I'm deciding between the 1895 Cowboy with the 26" octagon barrel and the Classic model 1895 with the 22" barrel. I would prefer the Cowboy, as I like the longer octagon barrel and the traditional lines of the straight stock. However, if the recoil is greatly increased due to the stock configuration, I would opt for the Classic 1895 with the 22" barrel.

Your experiences are greatly appreciated, Bowhunter57
 
I have a fairly old 22 inch barreled 95 Marlin in 45-70. It had the straight stock.
Originally it had a curved steel butt plate that I had removed and a Pach. decelerator pad installed after the point of the curve put a hole in my chest.
I have been told that the pistol gripped stock handles recoil better than the straight one. Not owning both I can't say from experience.
I used mine on elk with a Speer 400 gr. flat point going 1800 fps. PLENTY of recoil available at that speed & bullet weight.
When I get to Texas I plan to download it with a bunch of the Rem. 405 gr. SP bullets that I have. Won't be shooting all that far & I doubt pigs need that much killing.
A very accurate micro groove rifle. 3 shot touching clover leafs @ 100 yds. are repeatable if you can stay focused for the 2nd. & 3rd. shots.
 
I've owned the same rifle as Bultaco. When Marlin re-introduced the 1895 in the early 1970's they had that stock for the 1st year or 2. I've also owned examples of the Guide Gun as well as the pistol gripped standard rifle.

There is absolutely no difference in recoil due to straight vs pistol gripped stocks. The older versions with the curved buttplate and no recoil pad were harsh, but not because of the straight stock.

I've never fired one of the Cowboys, but with the longer, heavier barrel it has to dampen recoil as well as limit muzzle jump compared to the standard rifle.
 
The stock geometry is exactly the same, if you compare same-year production of straight-grip versus pistol grip stocks (without the Monte Carlo hump [cheek rest] found on some models).

As such, felt recoil is exactly the same.

However.... a pistol grip stock lets the shooter keep the dominant elbow lower and closer to the body than a straight-grip stock.
So, some people to say that there is more perceived recoil.


I haven't fired any Marlin .45-70 that I can recall, but I have fired Marlin Model 444s (.444 Marlin) with both styles of stock. (On the same rifle, even.)
For me there is no difference in perceived recoil.

Since I prefer a straight-grip stock for not just looks, but also 'feel', that means I don't care for pistol grip Marlins.
 
I had the straight stock Marlin and recoil was never an issue. Come to think of it, I've never been concerned with the recoil in any 45-70. More like a gentle push. :)
 
While I don't own a Marlin in 45-70, I do have a Browning 1886 SRC with the straight stock and the curved steel carbine butt plate. The recoil has never been an issue in firing the rifle as long as I'm paying attention to what I'm doing and keep the stock pulled tight into my shoulder. When you don't have it pulled in tightly, it'll let you know in no uncertain terms. :D
 
I've owned a good number of 45-70s now and it both configurations. I've never noticed a difference in shooting ease or recoil between either stock. I think it's more "looks" than function. I just finished a local silhouette match two weeks ago shooting a straight stocked High Wall and shot a 38 standing shooting at the centerfire field pistol targets out to 100yds. I didn't have any problem with the straight stock but I have a visual preference for pistol grip myself.
 
I don't notice a difference. With any hard-kicking rifle put the shooting elbow down to increase the thickness of the muscle behind the stock, hold it firm, but not too tightly, and roll with the punches (recoil).
 
Never felt a difference, I had bought one of the 95's as soon as they came out and it had a straight stock. Shot a newer model a buddy had. The only major difference I felt was between 300 Gr and 405 Gr bullets in factory ammo.
 
Thank you, for the replies, gentlemen! :)

I plan to reload for this rifle, but not with any heavy bullets or hot loads, so the recoil should be very manageable. I'm not a recoil sensitive person, but didn't want to purchase an army mule for a rifle either. :D

I've been thinking about purchasing this rifle, ever since I put my hands on it and I can't wait to shoot the first few rounds at the range. :cool:

Bowhunter57
 
I see no benefit or even a use for a 45-70 in any gun!

The heavier recoil, poor trajectory etc. make other cartridges better.
 
I have a Savage 99 Featherweight in .358 Winchester. I used it to hunt once. I don't see a need for that either, but they made them.
 
I see no benefit or even a use for a 45-70 in any gun!

The heavier recoil, poor trajectory etc. make other cartridges better.
Click to expand...
There are many reasons for people to justify almost any cartridge.

But, for .45-70, .444 Marlin, .450 Marlin, .35 Whelen, .358 Winchester, etc...


There's one really easy way to justify it/them:
If you're not shooting at long range, the "poor trajectory" (matter of opinion) really doesn't matter.
And, a bigger hole is almost always better.

Sure, a flat-shooting .24 caliber cartridge is easy on the shoulder and shoots "laser flat" ...usually.
But, can it put a .45 caliber entry hole in the animal?
Can the bullet expand to 0.900"+ while still retaining more than twice the weight the .24 caliber bullet has when it gets started?
Can it shoot through an 8" pine tree and STILL have enough weight retained to hit the animal like the Hand of God?
-Been there. Done that. It's beautiful. :D

Sometimes 'fast and flat' is fine.
Other times, 'big and slow' is just as good. ...Or even better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top