recoil
- Thread starter mackillan
- Start date
Thanks stubble. I had a subjective view that this was the case but I was told that the wsm had the least. Im looking at buying a Steyr for all round usage and didnt want to experiment.
- Location
- Coquitlam, BC
I've shot the 300 WSM before, it had a real sharp kick to it.
- Location
- Lloydminster
Actual recoil is very easy to calculate. High school physics teaches us that momentum(not mechanical energy) is always conserved. In other words mass times velocity of the bullet(and powder/gases) equals mass times velocity of the rifle. Simple enough!
However, perceived recoil has so many variables that the only way to accurately predict is to experiment. The shape of the stock has much to do with how it and how fits the shooters body in different shooting positions. As SJ said, the only way to compare would be to have the exact same rifle with different chamberings.
However, perceived recoil has so many variables that the only way to accurately predict is to experiment. The shape of the stock has much to do with how it and how fits the shooters body in different shooting positions. As SJ said, the only way to compare would be to have the exact same rifle with different chamberings.
Last edited:
Stock fit, configuration and rifle weight are a bigger deal than the actual difference in the recoil of those.
Play here to check for yourself.
http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/calculations/calculations.html
Play here to check for yourself.
http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/calculations/calculations.html
westcoaster
CGN Regular
- Location
- Central BC
Recoil, as has been mentioned previously is a function of the weight of the rifle, the energy developed by the cartridge and the weight of the bullet.
What you feel will often vary from what it says it should be on paper.
I've shot all of these in several rifles...
I felt that the 7mm was the lightest and the 300wm the heaviest although there was not - for me - much difference between the three. I would say that the 300wsm was more of a "punch" and the 7mm & 300wm more of a "push".
The rifles I've shot in these calibers were Model 70 - 7mm, Model 700 - 7mm, Model 700 7mm, Model 70 - 300wsm, Browning a bolt - 300wsm, Ruger mkII - 300wm, Model 700 - 300wm, Model 70 - 300wm.
They are all fine cartridges as far as ballistics although I would lean more toward the 300wm for the greater range of bullets and loads possible.
manbearpig
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Somewhere in the Third World
my experience with this is limited but maybe it will help:
IMO it totally depends on the rifle (and pad). ive shot 180 grainers from a 300 Win Mag and 150 grainers from a 7mm Rem Mag. now in theory the 300 should have had significantly more recoil, but the 300 was totally comfortable to shoot in a 700 Sendero while the 7mm was absolutely brutal in a Tikka T3.
since i dont reload i personally would not buy the 300 WSM because while premium ammo costs the same, the white box ammo which i use for practice generally costs $10 more for the WSM. that 1/2" receiver length that i would save is not that important to me in a standard rifle. it depends on your priorities i guess: if you were trying to build a lightweight rifle i can see a benefit in the WSM but for just a general hunting rifle it seems pointless to me and id stick with the old 300 Win Mag.
also some specialty ammo - such as the managed recoil ammo - is widely available for the common magnums like 300 Win Mag and 7mm Rem Mag but not the WSMs.
IMO it totally depends on the rifle (and pad). ive shot 180 grainers from a 300 Win Mag and 150 grainers from a 7mm Rem Mag. now in theory the 300 should have had significantly more recoil, but the 300 was totally comfortable to shoot in a 700 Sendero while the 7mm was absolutely brutal in a Tikka T3.
since i dont reload i personally would not buy the 300 WSM because while premium ammo costs the same, the white box ammo which i use for practice generally costs $10 more for the WSM. that 1/2" receiver length that i would save is not that important to me in a standard rifle. it depends on your priorities i guess: if you were trying to build a lightweight rifle i can see a benefit in the WSM but for just a general hunting rifle it seems pointless to me and id stick with the old 300 Win Mag.
also some specialty ammo - such as the managed recoil ammo - is widely available for the common magnums like 300 Win Mag and 7mm Rem Mag but not the WSMs.
The 7 mag with 160gr bullets (or lighter) has a lot less felt recoil than either of the 30 mags.
A 300Win with a stiff load and 200 grain bullets feels pretty much like a 338Win.
All of this assumes identical riles and weights.
A 300Win with a stiff load and 200 grain bullets feels pretty much like a 338Win.
All of this assumes identical riles and weights.
Last edited:
Lots of wisdom here, methinks.
I have owned four rifles in .300 WSM and I thought all of them punched way above their weight class.
Don't think I ever had a rifle in 7 mm Rem Mag that was brutal to shoot, but that might just be a function of ailing memory.
But like the choir is all singing, perceived recoil is too subjective to generalize about. I would try to SHOOT the gun I wanted to buy, and then decide.
Free advice, worth what you paid for it.
Doug
I have owned four rifles in .300 WSM and I thought all of them punched way above their weight class.
Don't think I ever had a rifle in 7 mm Rem Mag that was brutal to shoot, but that might just be a function of ailing memory.
But like the choir is all singing, perceived recoil is too subjective to generalize about. I would try to SHOOT the gun I wanted to buy, and then decide.
Free advice, worth what you paid for it.
Doug
That's what I've always heard and read for years. Imagine my shock when I got my first Weatherby and found that those goofy Monte Carlo combs and lowered buttstocks were MUCH more comfortable to shoot than the classic-styled stocks that I always preferred. It may take years before their appearance grows on me, or it may never happen, but as far as shooting comfort goes the Weatherby-style Monte Carlos are the way to go imo.
I think that the biggest of the many variables involved in subjective recoil is the shooter himself, i.e. his build, his shooting stance and style, etc.
John
