Perceived Recoil

S

sirgilligan

New member
I have been doing some research into perceived recoil. I just shot the Glock 43 and the S&W M&P 9 Shield, each one 100 rounds. I shot five rounds in one and then the other, over and over.

The "guy at the range" said that most people say the Glock 43 kicks harder than the S&W M&P 9 Shield.

But does it actually kick harder, or does it just feel that way?
Glock weighs 17.95 oz empty
S&W weighs 20.8 oz empty
That is from their web sites.

What do you all think? Do they have the same kick? Is it just perception or is it real that one kicks more than the other? If so, how much more? 2 oz is a lot for such light guns. Maybe their recoil springs are significantly different. Maybe the slide weight is significantly different.

Just wanted to see what people think.

IMG_2525.jpg
 
Perceived recoil is just that. What each person preceives in their own head. A lot of people complain about the "snappy" recoil of the LCP, the painful recoil of the LCR with +P loads. I have both, and can't say either really bothers me. Some are completely turned off by almost anything they feel from the results of that Newton dudes observation about equal and opposite.
Others obsess over muzzle flip, and their concern for the magical follow up shot. Really? In all practicality, in a real SD situation, is it going to make that much difference if a muzzle climbs 4 inches rather than 2?
 
Last edited:
Cheapshooter said:
Perceived recoil is just that. What each person preceives in their own head. A lot of people complain about the "snappy" recoil of the LCP, the painful recoil of the LCR with +P loads. I have both, and can't say either really bothers me. Some are completely turned off by almost anything they feel from the results of that Newton dudes observation about equal and opposite.
Others obsess over muzzle flip, and their concern for the magical follow up shot. Really? In all practicality, in a real SD situation, is it going to make that much difference if a muzzle climbs 4 inches rather than 2?
Click to expand...
Pain is different for each person, and it could be said that pain is what each person perceives in their own head.

If someone is more sensitive to pain then maybe they have a built in "meter" that better measures recoil than others. Like smell, I have witnessed someone smell something and say they don't smell anything and someone else smell it and say it stinks.

So maybe those that are more attuned to the feeling in the hand / wrist can actually detect more recoil.
 
Perceived recoil is very subjective and lot has to do with how well a pistol fits the shooter as in how the grip accommodates their hand shape/size, the shooters skill including grip technique, the shooters size, and the shooters strength.

I have seen people complain about recoil and then when I see how they grip a pistol it is not surprising.

The pistol design certainly has something to do with it too including pistol operating design, pistol length, total mass and mass distribution, frame material and design, slide length, slide mass and mass distribution, slide speed, bore axis, and springing including RSA and hammer spring in pistols that have a hammer.

So no simple answers.
 
Last edited:
ouch!

Grip size, angle texture, etc., will play a fairly significant part in perceived recoil as well.

I "feel" my Hi-Power in 9mm recoils far more then my Govt model in 45acp.

Very subjective and completely up to you.
 
Well, I have a little more info to give, but first wanted some opinions before I gave it out. I had an accelerometer with me so I measured it. While I was shooting it was very easy to tell which one felt like it kicked the most. After 200 rounds over a short period my sensitivity level was more acute.

Taking the maximum value for each five shots then from all of those values throwing out the high and the low the results were exactly what I felt:

Glock 43: 11.27 G
M&P 9 Shield: 9.78 G

What our very sophisticated nervous system tells us in this case is our personal measurement of physics at work, which is in my opinion a very accurate indicator, though each of us is calibrated differently.

Now what do you all think?
 
sirgilligan said:
Well, I have a little more info to give, but first wanted some opinions before I gave it out. I had an accelerometer with me so I measured it. While I was shooting it was very easy to tell which one felt like it kicked the most. After 200 rounds over a short period my sensitivity level was more acute.

Taking the maximum value for each five shots then from all of those values throwing out the high and the low the results were exactly what I felt:

Glock 43: 11.27 G
M&P 9 Shield: 9.78 G

What our very sophisticated nervous system tells us in this case is our personal measurement of physics at work, which is in my opinion a very accurate indicator, though each of us is calibrated differently.

Now what do you all think?
Click to expand...
I think you hit the bullseye.
 
SonOfScubaDiver said:
Doesn't it have more to do with how guns absorb recoil than anything else?
Click to expand...
I would think that is a factor. I gun in a vice would have zero acceleration because it can not move. The soft tissue in one's hand allows the gun to move somewhat, so the harder your hand, the stiffer your grip, the straighter your arms, etc, will affect movement. However, there will be slight movement and the accelerometer doesn't need much to detect it. I can barely tap it and it shows up.
 
The mass of a weapon is a MAJOR factor in the physics of recoil. If you double the mass, the velocity slows down to more of a push.
Shoot the same cartridge in a heavy, large bore rifle and a lightweight rifle and note that one is going to be a snappy bite on your shoulder, the other will be more like a push.
 
The Glock 43 kicks a bit more. Not horribly though. Main distinction, for me, is that the G43 can work as a front pocket gun, the Shield is too big and heavy for that.
 
As far as my non-scientific mind can tell, there are a lot of factors at play. In theory, all "similar ammo" should produce a similar amount of recoil energy. For example, all 115 grain 9mm, running at X fps, should produce about the same amount of recoil energy pushing up against the breech face. It's what happens to that energy after that that seems to make the difference. A heavier slide will bleed off some of that energy, and the heavier the slide, the more is bled off. Aside from that, there are all kinds of PFM (Pretty Freaking Magical) things that go on that might affect felt recoil. In slow motion, polymer pistols can be seen to flex, which I think bleeds off some of the energy. A pistol that fits well to one's hand might have less felt recoil than a poorly-fitting one.

Anyway, that's my take on it, for whatever that's worth.
 
Spats McGee, sigarms228, and sirgilligan all make good points:

Physics (gun weight, including the moving slide's weight matter, as does whether the frame can flex (as with some poly guns) during recoil. For me, one of the most important thing is how the gun fits YOUR hand. (A narrow grip, for example, passes the same recoil force to a smaller area than a wider grip -- and you FEEL the difference!)

A different recoil spring can change the duration of the recoil impulse, expanding or shortening the time it takes to pass the recoil force to the shooter. The difference between different weight recoil springs may seem almost trivial, but you will likely notice a difference when shooting the gun.

All of these factors are experienced very subjectively -- and some folks are really recoil sensitive (with any gun), and others just don't seem to pay much attention. (I never enjoyed shooting my Kel-Tec PF9 or Ruger LC9, for example, but others claimed it wasn't an issue for them when shooting those guns. I seldom shot more than 15-20 rounds before I was ready to put the gun away for the day.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top