Led sled recoil
- Thread starter uel1780
- Start date
I didn't know a recoil lug could be bent :0
The recoil lug on my Weatherby Vanguard Series 2 is a solid machined part of the receiver ... I would think the stock would give first ... hopefully my 30-06 will never generate that much force to bend the lug. If the stock goes ... I would just get another stock.
Give me a break! How can slowing down the shock imparted to a scope be hard on it?
A scope receives shock when the recoil is very quick or if the quick recoil is stopped quickly. Scopes are made to handle that recoil and stoppage from a shouldered gun. Using a heavy sled slows that recoil and there is less stress on the scope due to less inertia.
As an example if you want to increase the shock a scope gets fire a light weight rifle 300 Magnum rifle with the butt stock freely held 6 inches from a large tree... that rifle will snap back very quickly and stop as suddenly with a good possibility of stock breakage and the most stress put on the scope.
You are not "slowing down the shock". The force is being exerted over a much shorter time frame/distance, and the energy is not being expelled by the normal means.
Look at F1/Nascar wrecks. The spectacular crashes, where the car is hurtled in the air and does many flips and rolls before coming to a stop, usually imparts the least amount of damage to the driver. In the unspectacular wrecks, where the car comes to a sudden stop, such as hitting a wall (even at much slower speeds than the spectacular crashes) are much more likely to be fatal.
The energy has nowhere to go. The rifle and components are absorbing all of it. There will definitely be g forces extended/felt by the scope. If the energy of the recoil is not expended over more distance (allowing the rifle to recoil), then the energy will be fully imparted through the rifle and its components.
Rather than the rifle doing a bunch of "flips and rolls" like that spectacular F1 car crash where the driver comes out okay, it's the crash where the car hits the wall and instantly stops, with all the energy expended over a very short time/distance. The driver is dead, or at least has an extended visit to ICU. This is your rifle in a lead sled.
Many people have had success using heavy recoiling rifles and lead sleds. There are also plenty of others that have had issues with scopes breaking and stocks cracking, from lead sled use. You may not suffer issues, or maybe you will. But the rifle and scope will definitely be seeing some more forces, that would otherwise be dissipated by other means.
So when Sierra Bullets (as an example) uses a "machine rifle", which is basically an "action" bolted to a bbl that is fixed solidly into the mass of a commercial structure / base which is part of their rifle range for ballistic testing, ...do those scopes break apart due to absolutely no recoil available to the machine rifle? All of that "recoil energy" will be transmitted into that scope and it flies apart sooner than normal?
Same with very heavy target rifles. My 10 kg F Class or unlimited class shoots heavy loaded rounds, and they move very little. My scopes do not fly apart. The energy from the shot is the same, the recoil distance is quite limited, but my Nightforces' keep on working.
Same with very heavy target rifles. My 10 kg F Class or unlimited class shoots heavy loaded rounds, and they move very little. My scopes do not fly apart. The energy from the shot is the same, the recoil distance is quite limited, but my Nightforces' keep on working.
The reason such a system would be hard on a scope is the same way a spring air rifle is. The direction of recoil in normal conditions is only in one direction, but with a lead sled or spring powered air rifle, the recoil impulse occurs in two directions opposed to eachother…. that is why they are hard on scopes that are not designed for that.
... yes the inertia of the sled and rifle are high (greater combined mass of a rigid system results in a resistance to acceleration) ... so when a force is applied to a rigid, high inertia system the components that are inline with that force will be subject to material stress directly (like the stock, recoil lug, backend of the sled, etc.). The scope is not inline with that force and would only be subject to the acceleration of the whole rigid system ... which is low because it is heavy ... so no ... the scope would not be subject to an absorption of a lot of energy. The whole system would ... and the mass of the scope is a lot less than the mass of the whole system. Think of it this way ... the force is the same but the mass is increased so the acceleration must decrease accordingly.
Inertia is the resistance to positional change (acceleration)
Work is a transfer of energy
Work = Force x Distance
Force = Mass x Acceleration
Work = Mass x Acceleration x Distance
That is why in a low inertia system like a free swinging rifle on a string hitting a tree 6 inches away would result in a massive acceleration of the scope (and also the stock) to be decelerated by the tree and in this case the scope and stock would absorb a lot more energy which would need to be dissipated by the scope internals. The mass of the scope would comprise a greater percentage of the overall system mass.
Inertia is the resistance to positional change (acceleration)
Work is a transfer of energy
Work = Force x Distance
Force = Mass x Acceleration
Work = Mass x Acceleration x Distance
That is why in a low inertia system like a free swinging rifle on a string hitting a tree 6 inches away would result in a massive acceleration of the scope (and also the stock) to be decelerated by the tree and in this case the scope and stock would absorb a lot more energy which would need to be dissipated by the scope internals. The mass of the scope would comprise a greater percentage of the overall system mass.
Last edited:
I get the inertia thing, but its is not exactly ridged.
The rifle is not bolted to a heavy object... it is sitting presumably against it with a rubber butt pad.
I would assume the rubber butt pad would compress under the initial force and compress to a point of maximum compression and then suddenly reverse direction with the entirety of that force and push the rifle forward with that same aggression.
If the rifle is not firmly against the stop plate when fired it would gain speed before hitting it... and magnify that reversal.
If the rifle was bolted firmly to the heavy object, there would be no force on the scope, but in the case of the sled, I would think there would be.
The whole point of the much criticized rope in the video I posted earlier in this thread is to reduce recoil in a more controlled manner.
The rifle is not bolted to a heavy object... it is sitting presumably against it with a rubber butt pad.
I would assume the rubber butt pad would compress under the initial force and compress to a point of maximum compression and then suddenly reverse direction with the entirety of that force and push the rifle forward with that same aggression.
If the rifle is not firmly against the stop plate when fired it would gain speed before hitting it... and magnify that reversal.
If the rifle was bolted firmly to the heavy object, there would be no force on the scope, but in the case of the sled, I would think there would be.
The whole point of the much criticized rope in the video I posted earlier in this thread is to reduce recoil in a more controlled manner.
Last edited:
The air rifle and scope example does not represent what is occurring to a scope in the sled example ... in a sled with a gun powder rifle the recoil is only in one direction ... i.e. opposite to the rifle bullet.
In an air rifle the recoil occurs in two directions ... due to the mechanical nature of the physical piston spring and Newton's Third Law.
When the spring moves forward pushing the air piston, it is also pushing rearwards. Then, when the spring reaches the end and the piston stops, the momentum causes the spring to move backward and forward again. This chain of actions and movement results in bidirectional recoil, slapping the scope back and forth (towards the shooter and away from the shooter) very rapidly which results in the scope internals being subject to acceleration (i.e. force) in one direction and then the opposing acceleration (i.e. force). The result is a destructive vibration to the scope internals destroys a scope not designed for it (like a normal firearm scope which can withstand heavy recoil in one direction ... but no vibration).
.... actually a good way to destroy any firearms scope is to put it into a high vibration environment ... like an unbalanced motor
In an air rifle the recoil occurs in two directions ... due to the mechanical nature of the physical piston spring and Newton's Third Law.
When the spring moves forward pushing the air piston, it is also pushing rearwards. Then, when the spring reaches the end and the piston stops, the momentum causes the spring to move backward and forward again. This chain of actions and movement results in bidirectional recoil, slapping the scope back and forth (towards the shooter and away from the shooter) very rapidly which results in the scope internals being subject to acceleration (i.e. force) in one direction and then the opposing acceleration (i.e. force). The result is a destructive vibration to the scope internals destroys a scope not designed for it (like a normal firearm scope which can withstand heavy recoil in one direction ... but no vibration).
.... actually a good way to destroy any firearms scope is to put it into a high vibration environment ... like an unbalanced motor
I agree. That small rubber pad in the sled does act a bit like a spring ... an inefficient one but a spring none the less ... and the whole sled does shift back quite a bit ... so it is recoiling backwards.
In any case I prefer good quality sandbags to sleds ... I use mine less and less as time goes on ... but I still use it occasionally for troubleshooting any load development uncertainties.
It is all good.
coleman1495
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Whitecourt
Inertia is a property of matter.A stationary object has inertia.
That’s a little off topic but inertia is a term that’s commonly misused.
That’s a little off topic but inertia is a term that’s commonly misused.
To the OP
It reduces recoil a lot ... 80% maybe in my opinion ... a lot ... it is subjective on how comfortable using it is ... this is dependent on personal preferences ...
A related question is ... how much stress is the gun and/or scope subject to in the Sled? ... and what, if any, damage to the gun is occurring ... or may occur after prolonged firing in the Sled.
It also depends on what you mean by a heavy caliber .... a 30-06? a 375 H&H ... a 460 Weatherby? 50 BMG and also on how much weight you intend to add to the sled ... empty, 25 lbs, 50 lbs ...
I'm with Guntech on this.
Bent recoil lugs???? Without pictures I call BS...
Scopes snapping off from recoil on a lead sled???? Again, pictures or it's just another urban legend that some claimed to have been there to see...
I might believe a poor quality wood stock cracking with a heavy caliber/heavy bullet...I said might.
Bent recoil lugs???? Without pictures I call BS...
Scopes snapping off from recoil on a lead sled???? Again, pictures or it's just another urban legend that some claimed to have been there to see...
I might believe a poor quality wood stock cracking with a heavy caliber/heavy bullet...I said might.
I made a sled for testing the bigger pigs that weighs about 18 pounds and you can still shoulder the recoil... and the felt recoil is very light. It slides freely on the bench. No damage to stocks or scopes.
Mine is very similar to this, with about 10 pounds of weight added. Reduces recoil very well. Haven't broken anything in the roughly 30 years or so I've been using it. Lucky, I guess. - dan
