biggest caliber with the lightest recoil

I don't really understand what you're getting at then?

As has been covered to death, bullet weight and velocity are but one of many factors in felt recoil. Asking what's the biggest bullet with the lightest recoil is like asking how long a piece of string is. It depends. It depends on powder charge, muzzle pressure, muzzle velocity, rifle weight, rifle fit, shooter technique and more I'm surely omitting.

If the question is simply what's the biggest bullet with the lightest recoil, then the answer is a 10 gauge muzzleloader with a 10 grain powder charge. But that's not a particularly helpful answer.

If you want a general rule, lower muzzle velocity and muzzle pressure will result in lower recoil, all other factors being equal. Energy = 1/2 weight x velocity squared, which pretty much gives you your answer.

User consensus can't escape the laws of physics, and what you're asking is fundamentally a question of physics. You're looking for a specific answer without the knowledge to understand WHY that's the answer.

A 7mm-08 in a very light rifle will kick more than a .375 H&H in a very heavy one. It'll kick more than a .338 lapua in a heavy rifle with a muzzle break. There's just no such thing as a "light recoiling" cartridge - it depends on the whole system of cartridge, rifle, and shooter.

I've had a .416 Rigby I found more enjoyable to shoot than some .30-06s... I had a Sako 85 that was far more painful and teeth rattling to fire than a Ruger 77 in .416... and I hunted with the .416 Rigby when I was 17, and the Sako .30-06 when I was 37... so that should tell you looking at the cartridge alone is meaningless.
 
Last edited:
I don't get it either... if anyone is worrying about recoil in a .243, 7mm-08, or .308, they need to take up fishing... this conversation only makes any sense in larger bore sizes of .375 and up (or really .40 cal and up)... unless you bring in the larger magnums with full power loads, ie. .340 Weatherby, .358 Norma etc...
 
I don't get it either... if anyone is worrying about recoil in a .243, 7mm-08, or .308, they need to take up fishing... this conversation only makes any sense in larger bore sizes of .375 and up (or really .40 cal and up)... unless you bring in the larger magnums with full power loads, ie. .340 Weatherby, .358 Norma etc...

Well, to be fair, as I say, I found my Sako 85 Black Bear .30-06 to be far more punishing to shoot in stock form than my Ruger 77 in .416 Rigby. The Sako was, for me, above and beyond any .30-06 I've ever fired. It should have been a .300 Win Mag for how it felt. The Rigby really was very pleasant to shoot even off a bench. Switching to a Limbsaver on the Sako over their cruel joke of a hard solid pad made all the difference. I'm sure you could build a downright painful 7mm-08 too, if you made a five pound rifle with a poor stock design.
 
Well, to be fair, as I say, I found my Sako 85 Black Bear .30-06 to be far more punishing to shoot in stock form than my Ruger 77 in .416 Rigby. The Sako was, for me, above and beyond any .30-06 I've ever fired. It should have been a .300 Win Mag for how it felt. The Rigby really was very pleasant to shoot even off a bench. Switching to a Limbsaver on the Sako over their cruel joke of a hard solid pad made all the difference. I'm sure you could build a downright painful 7mm-08 too, if you made a five pound rifle with a poor stock design.

Stock design plays a huge role.

Heym's Express Rifle in 404 Jeffery, which I used to take more than 20 African animals in 2013, was extremely nice to shoot. Much kinder to shoot than my Brno 602 (.375 H&H and .416 Rigby), no pain at all (unlike the Verney Carron "aka the log-splitting maul" in 450/400 3" NE - which also shot a 400 grain bullet, just 100 fps slower than the Jeffery), and quite close to my Ruger RSMs in .375 H&H and .416 Rigby.

All things being equal, stock design with play a significant role in how comfortable or punishing the recoil will be.
 
And even then, individual fit and style is a huge factor as well. Just 'cause it fits one guy well doesn't mean that'll be true for everyone; a poorly designed stock won't work for anyone, but even a well designed stock may not work for some. Lol... "it's like a shirt, man. Either it fits you well or it doesn't."
 
That is why this discussion of recoil based solely on caliber or cartridge is lacking... the load, stock design, recoil pad and rifle weight play huge roll in felt recoil, but not as much as shooter tolerance, which is highly subjective.
 
I guess you've never shot .22LR then, eh? :p

Put it it a one ounce gun, and it'll have the recoil energy of a .30-06 in a 7lb rifle, with well over ten times the recoil velocity



Again, you're missing the point... it isn't the cartridge alone. It's the combination of cartridge, shooter and weapon. The .22 LR as we know it has low recoil only because any practical rifle design has a mass proportionally heavy enough to make it insignificant. It isn't the cartridge alone that is "light recoiling."

Put a .50 BMG in a rifle with the same proportional mass as a CZ452 is to .22 LR and you'll have the same result.
 
Last edited:
That is why this discussion of recoil based solely on caliber or cartridge is lacking... the load, stock design, recoil pad and rifle weight play huge roll in felt recoil, but not as much as shooter tolerance, which is highly subjective.

Exactly. The original question basically boils down to "how long is a piece of string."
 
flash...just because you don't like the nuance I'm gauging the answers by, doesn't mean you have the right to question my curiosity or derail the conversation.

what it comes down to is empirical evidence...and once a trend is spotted in the conversation, I can apply whatever considerations I wish to it.

and being there is no 1 oz .22LR rifle, your example is ridiculous. :p

so, going back to the 9.3x62...it's interesting that several have commented it's recoil seems to be quite manageable, despite the math.
 
flash...just because you don't like the nuance I'm gauging the answers by, doesn't mean you have the right to question my curiosity or derail the conversation.

what it comes down to is empirical evidence...and once a trend is spotted in the conversation, I can apply whatever considerations I wish to it.

and being there is no 1 oz .22LR rifle, your example is ridiculous. :p

so, going back to the 9.3x62...it's interesting that several have commented it's recoil seems to be quite manageable, despite the math.

I don't actually really like or dislike your nuance. I'm pretty ambivalent about it. Please feel free to highlight where I question your curiosity; what I'm really doing is explaining why you're asking an unanswerable question.

And no, actually, the fact that there's no one ounce .22LR is irrelevant to your question. Indeed, the fact you say it's a goofy example speaks precisely to what's already been said so many times; it's the system, not the cartridge on its own. If you're asking which cartridge is generally agreed to be "light recoiling" in a standard weight rifle for that calibre, well... that's a different question than the one you asked. The answer will be the one firing a given weight of bullet at the lowest velocity.

You're either misapplying or misunderstanding what empirical means. What you're actually asking for is subjective evidence, not empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is easily available by running your chosen variables through a recoil calculator to your heart's content. Once you get outside that, you're dealing with subjective evidence; how that particular weight rifle impacts that particular shooter. That's the difference between recoil and felt recoil.

I'm happy to help answer your questions as best I can. I'm just unsure what you're actually asking. 9.3x62 in a standard weight rifle for that cartridge is generally manageable because it fires a 250 grain bullet slower compared to the alternatives. There's no mystery there. The .338 Win Mag, .375 H&H and .338 Lapua all fire the same bullet weight at substantially higher velocities, so OF COURSE they'll have higher recoil given the same weight rifle. Of course they will. The 9.3x62 is mentioned often because it's the slowest long action cartridge over 2000 fps firing a 250 grain bullet. The .45-70 can be loaded to fire a 250 grain bullet even slower, but that's a handloading proposition which doesn't seem to be what you're asking after. The .38-55 fires a 255vgrain bullet at 1300 fps, but it's so obscure very few have experience with it compared to 9.3x62 which is itself slightly obscure.

Your curiosity is great, but what you're not hearing is that you're asking the wrong question. Several very knowledgeable and experienced shooters have chimed in to say exactly that. No dig at you, everyone is doing their best to pass on knowledge.
 
Last edited:
I'm no physics expert but doesn't the rate powder burns have something to do with it?

Only insomuch as it relates to charge weight and muzzle pressure. Heavier charges (which slower powders tend to have) and higher muzzle pressure (ditto) will lead to more recoil.
 
This is true, but it's a simplification. When I get home tonight I'll post up a rigorous recoil calculation, including the effect of muzzle blast, rifle acceleration and other effects.

Sorry, fellows, I had some unexpected family business come up this weekend that could not wait. I will revisit this when I have some time this week. I will use some of the cartridges/loads suggested in this thread and hope the contributors find it interesting.
 
I shot my friends 300 Savage in a standard weight rifle, it was a remington 700 classic I believe. I think he was using 150 gr bullets. Recoil was minimal and the accuracy was great.
 
Back
Top Bottom