M1 Garand vs bolt action 30-06 ?
- Thread starter rebs
- Start date
My impression is that you are correct, partly because of the gas operation of the Garand and definitely because it has more weight than most modern bolt action rifles. Although I confess I have no objective way to measure actual recoil. The converse is that I usually can't put a Garand down without trying a few rapid fire strings long enough to overheat the barrel on a modern sporting bolt gun, and I end up walking away from a session with a Garand more jarred up than had I been shooting a bolt gun.
The Garand won't handle the same level of loads a modern bolt gun will, either .... The premium hunting loads marketed now use much slower powders than the ones used in loads for the Garand .... using many of the modern hunting loads in a stock garand will damage the operating rod ......
So, if you took an 11 lb. bolt gun, and fed it with a load that would be Garand Friendly (say 47gr IMR 4064 under a 168gr jacketed bullet), it would still kick more than the Garand, because none of the gas would be bled off to operate the action, and none of the recoil impulse would be absorbed by the action.......
So, if you took an 11 lb. bolt gun, and fed it with a load that would be Garand Friendly (say 47gr IMR 4064 under a 168gr jacketed bullet), it would still kick more than the Garand, because none of the gas would be bled off to operate the action, and none of the recoil impulse would be absorbed by the action.......
Do you plan on replacing the steel butt plate on the garand with a recoil pad? If not then I would say the bolt action will have better odds of having a good recoil pad. I spent an afternoon shooting a m1 garand with "friendly" loads and shooting my 300 win mag bolt action with a nice thick limbsaver pad and can say that it took alot of wit to ignore the sharp recoil of that steel plate bolted on the back of the garand.
Another thing to consider is that the way the garand works delays the action to where the bullet has exited the barrel before the action begins to open so I dont see much recoil reduction there other than the loss of ejecta from what tiny bit passes through the gas port.
Also may consider the loads you will be restricted to in the garand, don't get me wrong I love the garand and can say is an absolute blast to shoot but hand loads in a bolt action will have better brass life since you will only neck size and won't need a heavy crimp or any crimp at all.
Another thing to consider is that the way the garand works delays the action to where the bullet has exited the barrel before the action begins to open so I dont see much recoil reduction there other than the loss of ejecta from what tiny bit passes through the gas port.
Also may consider the loads you will be restricted to in the garand, don't get me wrong I love the garand and can say is an absolute blast to shoot but hand loads in a bolt action will have better brass life since you will only neck size and won't need a heavy crimp or any crimp at all.
tahunua001
New member
A lot less felt recoil with the M1 but that is probably because the garand weighs 9.5 pounds empty and most bolt action hunting rigs are between 6 and 7 pounds loaded.
I've shot both rifle types in the same day during matches and with both having the same weight within a few ounces, I felt no difference in recoil between them That's shooting the same lot of M72 .30-06 match ammo in both
Note the bullet's several feet down range before the Garand's op rod starts back and eventually opens its bolt. The small amount of gas that's in the gas cylinder's a small fraction of what's ejected out the muzzle which causes most of the recoil felt by the shooter.
Note the bullet's several feet down range before the Garand's op rod starts back and eventually opens its bolt. The small amount of gas that's in the gas cylinder's a small fraction of what's ejected out the muzzle which causes most of the recoil felt by the shooter.
I doubt that in anything like a normal load, the "jet effect" of gas from the muzzle is "most" of the recoil. It varies with the load, but usually runs around 25-30%.
The fact is that the "jet effect" is not something magical. Recoil (movement of the rifle to the rear) is the direct result of the movement of the bullet and gas to the front. Recoil is usually said to start when the bullet begins to move, and that is good enough for all but the most picky, but some gas always escapes around the bullet before it begins to move (it is that gas that causes throat erosion), and that gas becomes part of the "ejecta" that causes the "jet effect".
But the gas is the result of burning powder and its mass is the same as the mass of the unburned powder. In a handgun, the mass of the powder is a fairly small fraction of the bullet mass; for example, a 230 grain bullet with 6 grains of Unique is a common .45 ACP load. The bullet weighs almost 40 times the powder, so the bullet contributes most to recoil. But in a .30-'06 rifle, a 150 grain bullet might be propelled by 50 grains of powder, so fully 1/4 of the moving mass is gas. No means of redirecting the gas (by a muzzle brake, for example) can reduce recoil more than that percentage.
True, the gas escaping around the bullet and after bullet exit moves faster than the bullet because it is lighter than the bullet, and that makes the recoil proponent due to the gas a bit greater than it would be otherwise. Still, the total mass of bullet and gas adds up (in the rifle example) to 200 grains.
That recoil is basically fixed, no matter how the rifle works. So why would a semi-auto rifle seem to recoil less? Because there is the time factor. The recoil is the same as with a bolt gun, but the recoil is spread out in time. The rifle does not begin to recoil immediately; it has its own inertia to overcome. A rifle like the M1 operates quickly enough that the recoil is not evident all at once; the operating mechanism spreads the recoil out over time, thus giving a "softer" feel to the recoil. The recoil is the same, given the same load and the same rifle mass; but the blow is less abrupt and thus feels lighter.
That is why we use terms like "perceived recoil" or "felt recoil" to describe what the shooter feels, versus what physics tells us the recoil is.
Jim
The fact is that the "jet effect" is not something magical. Recoil (movement of the rifle to the rear) is the direct result of the movement of the bullet and gas to the front. Recoil is usually said to start when the bullet begins to move, and that is good enough for all but the most picky, but some gas always escapes around the bullet before it begins to move (it is that gas that causes throat erosion), and that gas becomes part of the "ejecta" that causes the "jet effect".
But the gas is the result of burning powder and its mass is the same as the mass of the unburned powder. In a handgun, the mass of the powder is a fairly small fraction of the bullet mass; for example, a 230 grain bullet with 6 grains of Unique is a common .45 ACP load. The bullet weighs almost 40 times the powder, so the bullet contributes most to recoil. But in a .30-'06 rifle, a 150 grain bullet might be propelled by 50 grains of powder, so fully 1/4 of the moving mass is gas. No means of redirecting the gas (by a muzzle brake, for example) can reduce recoil more than that percentage.
True, the gas escaping around the bullet and after bullet exit moves faster than the bullet because it is lighter than the bullet, and that makes the recoil proponent due to the gas a bit greater than it would be otherwise. Still, the total mass of bullet and gas adds up (in the rifle example) to 200 grains.
That recoil is basically fixed, no matter how the rifle works. So why would a semi-auto rifle seem to recoil less? Because there is the time factor. The recoil is the same as with a bolt gun, but the recoil is spread out in time. The rifle does not begin to recoil immediately; it has its own inertia to overcome. A rifle like the M1 operates quickly enough that the recoil is not evident all at once; the operating mechanism spreads the recoil out over time, thus giving a "softer" feel to the recoil. The recoil is the same, given the same load and the same rifle mass; but the blow is less abrupt and thus feels lighter.
That is why we use terms like "perceived recoil" or "felt recoil" to describe what the shooter feels, versus what physics tells us the recoil is.
Jim
chris in va
New member
My M1 has about the same felt recoil as the Saiga AK in x39 I had. Very manageable and almost pleasant. The recoil impulse is spread out a lot more, while the bolt action is hard and abrupt. I don't feel the need for a recoil pad on the Garand.
I don't think either one will move back more than 1/16 inch or so in recoil before the bullet leaves.
Check out post 37 by Unclenick and post 40 by me in:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=488372&highlight=rifle+movement+recoil&page=2
But that's enough to change the bullet's impact on target by changing the way the rifle's held against your body but the sight's still on a given point on the target. The barrel axis moves away from where you want it to before the bullet leaves.
Check out post 37 by Unclenick and post 40 by me in:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=488372&highlight=rifle+movement+recoil&page=2
But that's enough to change the bullet's impact on target by changing the way the rifle's held against your body but the sight's still on a given point on the target. The barrel axis moves away from where you want it to before the bullet leaves.
Last edited:
Perceived recoil; greatly effected by where the barrel axis is relative to the butt plate center. When it's well above it (Weatherby's original stock designs were horrible), the rifle swings upward at the muzzle quite a bit after the bullet leaves. Straight stocks with the barrel axis, and therefore the recoil axis, much more aligned with the butt plate have little muzzle rise; they push straight back and don't move much angular wise while the bullet goes down the barrel as well as after it's left.
Recoil inline with the butt plate center is one reason why tube guns used in competiton are shooting better scores than conventionally stocked ones. They move less in the vertical axis than more conventionally designed stocks.
Recoil inline with the butt plate center is one reason why tube guns used in competiton are shooting better scores than conventionally stocked ones. They move less in the vertical axis than more conventionally designed stocks.
That's a good talking point from hornady but it left me puzzled because I can't imagine propellant gases being the major contributor of recoil in all cases. As in JamesK's example for the .45 ACP, you have a proportionally small mass of powder gas to bullet mass, a low chamber pressure and a high expansion ratio (large increase in bore volume vs powder mass) and so I can't imagine the gas velocity to be that much higher than the muzzle velocity. Thus, I can't imagine the powder gases being a significant contributor for the .45 ACP.
However, what I have "heard" (range talk) is that for a 50,000 psi chamber pressure cartridge, the powder gas velocities reach 2 to 3.5 times the muzzle velocity. Since the first recoil calculation is a momentum balance (mass time velocity) between the rifle and the sum of the powder and bullet momentum, the contribution from the gases would indeed be significant for a .30-'06 with 50 grains of powder and a 150 grain bullet - maybe 40 to 50%? All I know is that my .300 Win mag seems to kick a heck of a lot harder than my .308's in proportion to the .300 WM's velocity increase over the .308.
What would be helpful here, would be if a ballistician from hornady or sierra would chime in and give us an estimate or a way to make a "shirt tail" estimate of powder gas velocities versus chamber pressures and/or other factors. Then the math would tell the story.
However, what I have "heard" (range talk) is that for a 50,000 psi chamber pressure cartridge, the powder gas velocities reach 2 to 3.5 times the muzzle velocity. Since the first recoil calculation is a momentum balance (mass time velocity) between the rifle and the sum of the powder and bullet momentum, the contribution from the gases would indeed be significant for a .30-'06 with 50 grains of powder and a 150 grain bullet - maybe 40 to 50%? All I know is that my .300 Win mag seems to kick a heck of a lot harder than my .308's in proportion to the .300 WM's velocity increase over the .308.
What would be helpful here, would be if a ballistician from hornady or sierra would chime in and give us an estimate or a way to make a "shirt tail" estimate of powder gas velocities versus chamber pressures and/or other factors. Then the math would tell the story.
Hammie, a gas particle's weight is quite a bit less than the bullet's weight. With the same pressure behind both the moment the bullet clears the barrel, which one's going to move the fastest?
If you measure the front and rear sight height relative to the bore axis on handguns, you'll learn the front sight's higher than the rear sight. Bore axis points below the point of desired bullet impact until it swings up in recoil until the bullet exits the muzzle at which time it points above it to allow for bullet drop and sight height.
If you measure the front and rear sight height relative to the bore axis on handguns, you'll learn the front sight's higher than the rear sight. Bore axis points below the point of desired bullet impact until it swings up in recoil until the bullet exits the muzzle at which time it points above it to allow for bullet drop and sight height.
@BartB: You're spot on about everything. I believe the powder gasses will act like rocket gases and the gas velocity will be proportionate to the pressures inside the barrel. As I said, it would be nice if someone could give us a way to estimate those gas velecities.
You're also right about muzzle flip. The distance between the bore axis and the point of rotation is called a moment arm and the longer that arm, the more the gun will want to rotate.
Since we're talking about recoil, I've always been perplexed by the claim that heavier, slower bullets give more of a push than lighter faster ones. All the fuss and feathers of internal ballistics are over within about 200 to 300 milliseconds. My shoulder has never been that sensitive or educated to make a comparison within that short of a time span. Whether a .270 or a .45-70, it always seemed like the same smack to me.
(Edit: @BartB again: Oh...and I liked your answer to stevennchunter about the 6x45 cartridge thread the other day.)
You're also right about muzzle flip. The distance between the bore axis and the point of rotation is called a moment arm and the longer that arm, the more the gun will want to rotate.
Since we're talking about recoil, I've always been perplexed by the claim that heavier, slower bullets give more of a push than lighter faster ones. All the fuss and feathers of internal ballistics are over within about 200 to 300 milliseconds. My shoulder has never been that sensitive or educated to make a comparison within that short of a time span. Whether a .270 or a .45-70, it always seemed like the same smack to me.
(Edit: @BartB again: Oh...and I liked your answer to stevennchunter about the 6x45 cartridge thread the other day.)
Last edited:
I've shot one barrel from a Rigby .470 Nitro Express and it's 500-grain bullet made that 12 pound rifle push me back a whole lot quite hard, but not with the snap and less amount my 9-pound Win 70 in .270 Win did at the time. Its barrels toed in and their axes crosses about 20 yards down range; the angle's about 5 MOA. That's what was needed for both to shoot to point of aim at 100 yards. Left barrel firing swung the rifle to the left, right to the right, before either's bullet left the muzzle.
Go figure.......
Then go figure out how someone shooting a 13 pound .22 rimfire with 5/8 MOA accuracy can shoot 20 shots into 1 MOA at 100 yards with its bullets taking .0035 seconds to leave the barrel at 1050 fps.....compared to a 13-pound .308 Win. rifle shot the same with 200 grain bullets in 1/3 MOA accuracy at 600 yards taking .0012 seconds to leave the barrel at 2500 fps and can keep all 20 shots in 2 MOA. Bolt holding the rifles in the same 3/4 MOA area on paper, but the more accurate rifle's shots in a much larger area on paper. Both in pristine range conditions and both stock shapes the same.
Go figure.......
Then go figure out how someone shooting a 13 pound .22 rimfire with 5/8 MOA accuracy can shoot 20 shots into 1 MOA at 100 yards with its bullets taking .0035 seconds to leave the barrel at 1050 fps.....compared to a 13-pound .308 Win. rifle shot the same with 200 grain bullets in 1/3 MOA accuracy at 600 yards taking .0012 seconds to leave the barrel at 2500 fps and can keep all 20 shots in 2 MOA. Bolt holding the rifles in the same 3/4 MOA area on paper, but the more accurate rifle's shots in a much larger area on paper. Both in pristine range conditions and both stock shapes the same.
Last edited:
5 percent
There is a small percentage of difference that you will not be able to feel. In other words if there is a 2% reduction you will not notice it. the same thing goes with the weight of a gun. If one shotgun is 3% lighter most people cannot tell it when they pick it up. They may guess correct.
There is a small percentage of difference that you will not be able to feel. In other words if there is a 2% reduction you will not notice it. the same thing goes with the weight of a gun. If one shotgun is 3% lighter most people cannot tell it when they pick it up. They may guess correct.
My first order from CMP was an M1 Garand and a model 1903, both by Springfield Armory. I remember taking them both to the range for a long shooting session and I can state that, using the same ammo, the 1903 would make my shoulder tender before getting 40 rounds down the barrel. The Garand was nothing but pleasant, and I could shoot that thing all day long without any pain at all. The one that really beats me up though is the the K98. I don't know how the Germans were able to fire those things very much without a lot of pain. Maybe that's why they wore all of the heavy, layered clothing.
To bring the KISS principal into it.
If you’re talking about the M1 Grand against a bolt like the 03-A3 with the same round. The Grand shoots a lot softer than the bolt. I can shoot a 50 round string with the Grand, the 03 its brutal on my shoulder but I am a lot more accurate with the bolt. But that’s me not the gun.
Az_imuth, K98, first heavy bolt action rifle I ever shot, an 8mm with a light tea shirt on. First round was on paper at 50 yards, I don’t think the second one has hit the ground yet and that was +40 years ago.
If you’re talking about the M1 Grand against a bolt like the 03-A3 with the same round. The Grand shoots a lot softer than the bolt. I can shoot a 50 round string with the Grand, the 03 its brutal on my shoulder but I am a lot more accurate with the bolt. But that’s me not the gun.
Az_imuth, K98, first heavy bolt action rifle I ever shot, an 8mm with a light tea shirt on. First round was on paper at 50 yards, I don’t think the second one has hit the ground yet and that was +40 years ago.