Mousefarts Bad, Recoil Good

Doc Shapiro · February 14, 2005, 02:05:21 PM

I've a theory that has held up through limited testing, but I'm looking for a little more input from the field at large.

The theory goes that moderate recoil (as opposed to almost no recoil) will lead to faster sweeps of targets. The thinking behind this is that the recoil gets the gun moving allowing the shooter to push it back down to the next target. Without recoil (or with very light recoil) the shooter has to exert more force to move the gun from one target to the next. If the shooter has to exert more force, then it'll take longer than if the recoil of the shot gets the gun moving. The recoil happens at the moment the bullet gets moving vs. a time delay for shooter reaction. In addition, if the shooter has to get the gun moving the slower muscles of the torso are used to twist the gun to the new location instead of the faster muscles of the arms and shoulders moving the gun back down.

Now, we're talking moderate recoil here (800fps loads) not warthog loads (hot and fast).

To test this, you'll need 5 targets, a timer, and 2 different loads. One is a mousefart type load (600fps or slower) and the other is a more moderate load (750fps - 850fps). Do several sweeps (single tap sweeps) with the light load, recording each time. Then several sweeps with the moderate load, recording each time. Average them out and report back.

Anyone want to help with the project?

Thanks,
Doc

Joyce (AnnieLee) · February 14, 2005, 02:33:27 PM

Doc, while I understand the concept, I think it would be difficult to prove. In order for it to be an untainted experiment, you'd have to use a new shooter. A person who has experience with a moderate load is more comfortable with that load and has made his necessary adjustments to be faster with it than with a no-recoil load, with which he is not familiar. The same goes in reverse for a person who is used to a lighter load.

For example, when I shoot my son's .38 loads, I am slower than usual, for I am used to recoil. When he shoots my .45s, he is slower than usual for he is used to no recoil. It's all in what the shooter likes and prefers to shoot.

AnnieLee

Micheal Fortune · February 14, 2005, 02:51:40 PM

Right Doc,

That's why I changed my load to a (.45Colt) 200 grain RNFP, 5.5 grains of TiteGroup. Don't know the velocity's but there is enough recoil to get the muzzle up a bit, rotating the hammer back to my waiting thumb with out totally loosing the sight picture and by the time my thumb has the hammer all the way back, the barrel is level with the target again and boom, clang.

Last month my stages were in the high 60's, 70's, 80's and this month my stages ran in 40's, 50's and 60's.

I did pick up a brace of RNV's and got my rifle finally filed in to shooting on target. These are cold weather shoots too where you can't feel your fingers or your feet. :-)

Delmonico · February 14, 2005, 04:14:41 PM

Sides that the theroy of reasonable recoil helping speed dates to the at least the 1880's and early timed pistol matches. the Colt Bisley was designed to help this affect. Elmer Keith talked about it often in his numerous writings and he forgot more about shootin' handguns than most of us will ever know.

To many folks saw him shoot to ever ignore his theroies. Historical Research will prove there ain't as much new as most folks think.

Uncle Eph · February 14, 2005, 05:11:15 PM

iffen Uncle Elmer said it; it's right.

Doc Shapiro · February 15, 2005, 12:19:59 PM

Well, if I've got corroboration from no less than the great Elmer Keith, who am I to argue

?

I guess what gets me is the prevailing thought that no recoil loads are good. Fact is they're not. Recoil is needed. Interesting stuff, huh?

Doc

Phantom Falcon · February 15, 2005, 01:35:51 PM

Doc,

If'n the recoil don't throw the revolver above your head, ya don't got enough powder!!

Cheers!

I'm so slow it makes no never mind to me, so I enjoy the BOOM and the smoke.

Micheal Fortune · February 15, 2005, 01:49:04 PM

To make your point clear, go load up a .22lr and see how much extra work it is to shoot it.

Delmonico · February 15, 2005, 02:05:45 PM

Many also don't realize that loading a round with a load less than recomended by a Ballistic Lab is just plain stupid with a capital S. There is a reason there are minimum loads. Ya folks get away with it, but if I had a dollar for every one I've heard about sticking bullets in bores, havin' a round that didn't quite seem up to snuff on any of the other things I've heard about.

Funny thing, many of these folks can come up with a reason why it's safe, but I've never talked to anyone who works in a lab that will agree. And with my basic knowledge of Physics and Chemistry, the lab guys make sense, the Mousepharts, below data folks don't. All they manage to do is convince this fella that they should not be allowed to reload.

Uncle Eph · February 15, 2005, 03:27:16 PM

wise words Del.

Bottom Dealin Mike · February 28, 2005, 12:43:04 PM

Doc,

I think you need to specify your bullet weight for that experiment as well as the FPS. For instance, a 250 grain slug moving at 750 fps generates a great deal more recoil than say an 165 grain slug at 800 fps.

I just finished a .45 ACP test for an article and I can tell you that Ferderal 165 grain Hysra shocks at 1132 fps had less percieved recoil than 230 grainers at 903 FPS

Doc Shapiro · February 28, 2005, 12:49:07 PM

BDM, it's not about the perceived recoil. Of course the heavier bullets will recoil more! However, moderate recoil is necessary to fast splits between targets. A 250 gr slug at 900 fps is not what I would consider moderate! However, a 200 gr slug at 700 fps makes more sense. Even more sense than a 165gr slug at 700fps. And a whole lot more than a 200gr (or 165gr) slug at 550! And I've seen those in use at matches.

Recoil is important to help drive the gun.

Doc

Aces and Eights · April 10, 2005, 09:04:20 PM

I am not buying it.

I can always run through a series of targets faster with a no recoil 22 than a recoil pistol. Just my experience. Scientific - no - but counteracting one force with another takes more time than no force. You still have to move right or left the same amount, up/down recoil or not. Remove up/down that must be countered, I believe the simple right left comes faster. Getting the "gun moving" just does not cut it if the movement is counter to the movement desired. My 2 cents but give me a 22 for speed over a 45 - anytime.

Delmonico · April 10, 2005, 09:50:50 PM

Pard, come to think of it yer most likely right or at least in some respects, Elmer talked about single actions when he stated that, but for pure speed and tack driving accuracy where power is not needed I forgot about those expensive European auto-loaders in 22 short with ports.

gryffon2004 · June 14, 2005, 07:01:53 PM

I like recoil.

;DDont get me wrong 22s are fun, but theres something about a loud boom that brings a smile to your face. With carbines i seem to shoot faster with the 45 colt than my 22. I realize that you were talking about 6 shooters though.

Adirondack Jack · June 27, 2005, 09:40:34 PM

I have noticed that for me, a moderate amount of recoil is very helpful.

Now, my background is many years of shooting .45 250s with 10 of Unique (ruger only, no clones please) at 1100 fps. Recoil of these was meant to be a fair representation (though by no means 100%) of my 1300 fps 250 gr hunting loads (ya shoot best when ya train like ya shoot being the theory).

When I transitioned to CAS, I started with what seemed a very modest load, a 250 at 800 fps. yep it has some sharp recoil for a CAS load, but durn if the hammer don't present itself nicely for recocking either duelist or "supported duelist" (which is what someone called my cock with the shooting hand two handed shooting method).

Looking for better POA/POI alignment with my vaqueros, I cut back to 750 fps 250s. Recoil was still sufficient to make em feel right to me.

Then I hurt my right elbow working on a car. It was extremely tender, and I ignored the Doc's recommendation to lay off shooting, but cut back the loads some. I tried both a 225 at 700 fps and a 250 at 650fps. I ended up fishing for the hammer a lot, and short stroking the ruger as my thumb slipped off th vaquero hammer from time to time.

After one shoot, I was back to the 250s at 750 fps, which has since been reduced to right around 720 with 777. Any less recoil and I'm lost. I find myself fishing for the hammer, driving the gun down too much, and a host of oither goofy things when I shoot real mousy rounds.

Now, that is not to say another shooter who trains with 180s at 700 isn't gonna be all screwed up with my loads, but that's what works for me.

jrdudas · June 28, 2005, 10:34:33 AM

Not sure about the speed issue with regard to recoil so I will defer to those who are more knowledgable. I have noticed a related phenomenon when practicing at an indoor range however. When I rapid fire (as in CAS events) I seem to get a better grouping than if I take my time between shots. That's not to say that the rapid fire grouping is on the bulls-eye, it's just a tighter group. I have noticed this happen mostly with my Ruger .38 cal Blackhawks, but also with my Marlin 1894cb. Not sure I understand why that is the case, but it seems to be true with my .22 caliber SA also. What do you think?

JR