Marketing gimmick - factors that contribute to felt recoil

T

TxFlyFish

New member
Ok this is a gauge on your perspective on factors that contribute to felt recoil.

Why this? I am tired of manufacturers spewing bs and hyping certain recoil mitigating features that turn out to be of little effect. Use your experience and put on your physics hat. Think of what has actually proven to be effective and what is marketing gimmick

please rank the following from the most effective to the least effective in mitigating felt recoil.

In no particular order,

A. Caliber
B. Ergos
C. Bore axis
D. Lock design
E. Overall pistol weight and balance
F. Slide weight and balance
G. Recoil spring
H. Barrel compensator
I. Other - please specify
 
Last edited:
Well, felt recoil can be rather subjective.

Many people equate muzzle rise or "flip" with felt recoil as well.

Of course Caliber is number one in the equation. A .22 is going to have less felt recoil in all ways that a .454.

Bore axis is probably number 2 is you use the Chippia Rhino as an example.
Most users say that a .357 never felt so soft using this gun with zero bore axis.
As well most olympic pistols try to get the bore axis as high as possible for least amount of muzzle rise.
 
I'll bite. Here's my own opinion, based on personal experience and readings. All very scientific you know. :p

Caliber
Overall weight of gun
Bore axis
Grip - length and texture - Would this come under ergos?

The others could be placed in any particular order and, while probably playing a role, are (by themselves) relatively minor.
 
The product of bullet mass and velocity, and the mass of the firearm, are of primary and equal importance, regardless of caliber. Technically, the mass of the propellant will enter to the equation, but that is of secondary importance.

The distance from the bore axis to the grip can make a practical difference.
 
Let me rephrase that for clarity and accuracy.

The mass and velocity of the ejecta (bullet and propellant gases) determine the actual recoil.

Given a specific amount of recoil ("impulse"), the mass of the gun determines the speed at which the gun moves backward.

The distance between the bore axis and the point at which the gun is held determines how much of the recoil is linear and how much is manifested by the rotation of the gun.

Things like the shape and texture of the grip can influence how the movement of the gun "feels" to the shooter.

In a semi-automatic, the speed of the gun over time may be influenced by how and when the slide moves.

The only really effective way to "mitigate felt recoil" (reduce the velocity of the recoiling gun) is to reduce the product of the mass and velocity of the ejecta while at the same time increasing the mass of the firearm.

Decreasing the distance between the bore axis and the place where the grip is supported will reduce the tendency of the gun to rotate and make it easier to return to the desired aim point rapidly.
 
Two Other Things

Many people suggest that the one use the largest caliber handgun that one can "shoot well". An extremely important issue in a close quarters self defense shooting is how fast one can shoot repeatedly while achieving combat accuracy. For that, one wants to minimize recoil, within the constraints of effective terminal ballistics, regardless of what one may be able to soot "well". For hunting, that does not apply.

Some people seem to feel that being able to "handle" recoil is something of a macho thing. The problem is, the cumulative effects of shooting heavily recoiling handguns manifest themselves in joint damage (arthritis), nerve damage, and injuries to tendons. All are to at least some extent permanent.

For both of these--shooting rapidly, and avoiding permanent injury--I suggest staying away from very light weight guns and ultra compact pistols.

To use one example, a Commander-size 1911-type gun with a light alloy frame is lighter and easier to carry all day than a steel frame version of the same caliber, maybe full-size, but the latter will recoil less. Is the latter too heavy? Well, knowing what I know today, I would rather wear suspenders every day to hold up a heavier firearm than end up with painful and debilitating hand and wrist afflictions.
 
Well, felt recoil can be rather subjective.
Click to expand...

Felt recoil is, well, "felt". Subjective. What works well for one person, doesn't for another.

A. Caliber
B. Ergos
C. Bore axis
D. Lock design
E. Overall pistol weight and balance
F. Slide weight and balance
G. Recoil spring
H. Barrel compensator
I. Other - please specify
Click to expand...

Gun weight, grip design (shape, and area pushed in to the palm), and power of the cartridge.

IMHO, YMMV, and I'm tired of marketing hype too.
 
There are a few cases in which lower bore axis did not have as much of impact on recoil mitigation. There are many cases that I can think of where other factors such as lock design can reduce the recoil even more than the much hyped bore axis. Same goes for overall weight...for instance Mark 23 for as large of a gun and weight is in its slide it has a pretty harsh recoil imho
 
Posted by TxFlyFish:
There are a few cases in which lower bore axis did not have as much of impact on recoil mitigation.
Click to expand...
Can you cite any specific examples in which a lower bore axis, in relation to where the gun is gripped, does not result in less rotation, all other things being equal?

I suppose grip angle could play a role.

There are many cases that I can think of where other factors such as lock design can reduce the recoil even more than the much hyped bore axis.
Click to expand...
Interesting--I've wondered about that. Can you expound on it?

An old blowback Astra 400 is hard to cycle, but I've never fired one. How does it shoot, compared to a locked-breech pistol of similar wroth and power?

Same goes for overall weight...for instance Mark 23 for as large of a gun and weight is in its slide it has a pretty harsh recoil imho
Click to expand...
All other things being equal, the effect of the rearward movement of a heavy slide would be noticeable (ala the old Browning long-recoil shotgun design), but are there any handguns in the same chambering, with the same barrel length and capacity, and with the same overall weight that are not slide heavy?

Interesting points.
 
Hey I point shoot. I use pistols as a self defense tool at self defense ranges. I guarantee you if, God forbid, you are forced to use a handgun, felt recoil will be the last thing on your mind.

I want the largest, most practical ammo and platform I can safely use with reasonable accuracy. I've hunted all my life----44 years since age 7. Not once have I felt recoil when shpoting a duck, deer, quail or pheasant----not once.

I've had a loaded sawed off shotgun pointed at my head in an armed robbery. You won't be worried about felt recoil during a time like that. We over think handguns. Any caliber from 9mm up will serve you well. If recoil is an issue at the range, get a range pistol that is easy to shoot but have a carry gun you will carry and don't stress about felt recoil. Shoot it enough to be competent and fear not.
 
Felt recoil is very subjective. 'A', 'E' and 'H' all contribute, but so does what you've heard and the muzzle blast and flash.
Grips for sure. More the material they're made of and their shape than anything else though. Rubber grips tame felt recoil fairly well, but so can just changing the size and shape of a wooden grip.
 
Some of those items can help mitigate recoil but at such a minute amount, its not really worth mentioning. This is where the gun marketing gets totally ridiculous. They take a feature that makes .01% difference and exploits it like its a major factor. Low bore axis is way over sold. Gun writers that are (ironically) sponsored are guilty of this as well.
 
The M&P, caracal, and it seems like the strike one all tout about the low bore axis. I know that it doesn't make any appreciable difference in the M&P and caracal is actually worse. The strike one seems like it's heading that direction with some early reviews coming in that it's not that much less recoil than the current market of striker fired platforms.

The lock design is one of the biggest difference in felt recoil. Take a look at a blowback vs a locked breech design, commonly seen in similar size 380. The rotating bolt PX4 has mild recoil as well. Pretty noticeable difference

To get more complex there's additional factors to consider. Have you noticed how there isn't that much recoil difference when you shoot a Glock 17 vs g26 or full size MP vs shield

It's difficult to quantify this, but as stated some features are way over hyped
 
Will Beararms said:
I want the largest, most practical ammo and platform I can safely use with reasonable accuracy. I've hunted all my life----44 years since age 7. Not once have I felt recoil when shpoting a duck, deer, quail or pheasant----not once.
Click to expand...

I believe you. But your experience, at the range and in the field, with guns that may have STOUT recoil, may not always apply to others. That may be the unmentioned value of shooting a lot with what you carry or anticipate using: no surprises. You know it's not a big deal, but some shooters may not have been able to jump over that hurdle.

A lot of folks FLINCH and pull shots when practicing, because of a wariness about recoil. I don't think we can automatically assume that their wariness at the range will always be forgotten in a more critical scenario. If multiple shots are required, the problem could return very quickly.
 
I think bore axis is one of the most overrated factors affecting recoil. Yes, mechanically, a higher bore axis will increase the torque, but we're generally talking about maybe 1/4 " of difference between the highest and lowest axis. The actual effect felt is far less than other factors like the action type, or the total weigh of the gun.

I think ergonomics is probably the most underrated factor, because it's subjective. A gun that fits your hand properly will result in less felt recoil, because you have a much more secure grip when the recoil hits. But because nobody can tell you which gun is the most ergonomic, it's hard to market it; felt recoil on a given gun will feel very different from one hand to the next. It also means that something as simple as swapping from one set of grips to another, or stippling a polymer frame, will have a bigger impact than changing the make & model of the gun.
 
IDK how much affect it has on recoil, but I know I can feel a lot of difference in perceived recoil based on bore axis. If I shoot my G19 or Caracal C back to back with my PPQ or P320 it feels like going almost from a 9mm to a .40.
Grip feel doesn't seem to affect the perceived recoil much to me. My LC9s fits like a glove, but kicks like a mule. My G30 grip is almost too big for my hand, but shoots so smooth with what feels like very little recoil.
 
Independent George said:
...I think ergonomics is probably the most underrated factor, because it's subjective. A gun that fits your hand properly will result in less felt recoil, because you have a much more secure grip when the recoil hits.
Click to expand...

I agee. Little things like the width of the grip (with a narrow one concentrating more of the recoil's force into smaller area on the hand) can make a BIG difference. With some guns, grip material can make a difference -- and then there are some polymer frames, which flex a bit and absorb some of the recoil force making the experience noticeably different.
 
I read a lot about snappy recoiling .40 rounds. I don't get it. My Glock Gen. 23, Glock Gen. 4 22 and Sig P239 are very easy to operate accurately. The Taurus 605 3" .357 and Ruger LCR +P .38 Special feel like I grabbed a hornet's nest with each trigger pull. I am sure those revolvers are fine with others. I agree everyone is different.

The believe the Low Bore Axis or Weight are two prevailent characterstics for recoil or felt recoil abatement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top