My New 308 Norma Mag!! Now with groups!! :o)

I have owned a number of 308 Normas, starting in 1967.
The recoil, while substantial, is not punishing to a person who shoots a fair amount with bigger chamberings.
Your are correct, gunsmith1951, about stock design reducing or amplifying "felt" recoil.
This Norma Mag has a limbsaver attached [At my request] so as to help in that department. I doubt it will cause any problems for me. Eagleye.
 
Very nice!

2007-10-27_091302_1aCoffee.gif

NAA.
 
RR said:
Very nice Rifle.If you got people to post pics of theirs you might be surprised how many 308NM there are.
Click to expand...

I hear you! There are quite a number in my area.
What does surprise me, is some are paying the exorbitant price for factory ammo [c.$80.00/20], rather than setting up to load for their Norma Mags.
My son-in-law also owns one, and it has been his primary hunting rifle for 20 years or so.
I have shot a lot of game with the 308 Norma, and it has always performed as required. For many years, my pet load was 75.5 grains of N205 with a 180 Partition seated on top.
My PH M81 Classic loves the 200 Accubond seated over 82 grains of Reloder25. This new one? Remains to be seen. Eagleye.
 
gunsmith1951 said:
The .308 had a reputation for being a tad much on the recoil side. I have not had the pleasure of proving this wrong, but I suspect hat it came from the various types of stocks and types of rifles that were rechambered in the hayday of magnums. Plenty potent and a good reputation in the killing department. Waiting for feedback on the recoil and the groups.
Click to expand...

This one is a Dumoulin built rifle in 308 Norma and it is plenty potent at both ends!
Shoots awesome though, I whacked a raven last month at about 80 yds (was after the calves eyes) - nothing but a pile of feathers left :D
100_3858-1.jpg
 
In my opinion no rifle stock seemed to absorb recoil better than did the Schultz and Larson rifles.
 
To me, [and this is a subjective, personal opinion] I like the "Classic" stock design best, without any Monte Carlo for recoil handling.
Therefore the Winchester, Ruger and Remington Classic stocks seem most comfortable. The Mountain rifle stock as well as the newer CDL stock from Remington are good as well.
The important thing with a rifle that delivers substantial recoil, is that it does not "rear" up and whack one in the cheek hard. This amplifies felt recoil and give the perception of a much harder "kick" than a rifle that basically comes straight back.
Another factor is the size of the butt of the stock. Slightly larger areas spread the recoil over a larger area, thus do not tend to "bite" under heavy recoil.
Of course, todays recoil pad technology is a big help as well, with limbsavers, kick-eez, decelerator, and some others doing a great job of reducing the comeback effect of boomers.
FWIW, I hate muzzle brakes with a passion, but recognize that certain chamberings make them almost mandatory [460 Weatherby, for example] Eagleye.
 
Dave, what you are saying about "kicking up," is so true.
That is why I litterally hate a Winchester 88 in 308. Ten shots and I have a sore cheek for two days. Other people may not find this, due to all of us being a different shape, but that is my take on them.
Also, the way the outer, usually left, hand grips the forestock has quite a bearing on felt recoil. That outer arm absorbs considerable recoil.
 
H4831 said:
Dave, what you are saying about "kicking up," is so true.
That is why I litterally hate a Winchester 88 in 308. Ten shots and I have a sore cheek for two days. Other people may not find this, due to all of us being a different shape, but that is my take on them.
Also, the way the outer, usually left, hand grips the forestock has quite a bearing on felt recoil. That outer arm absorbs considerable recoil.
Click to expand...

Bruce; Agree, yes & yes again!! I bought an 88 Winchester 308 brand new in 1964. A very accurate levergun, but hard on my cheek too. Dave.
 
Well, I promised to post the results once I got a chance to break this barrel in and develop a couple of loads, and it sure did not Disappoint!!! The first group is with the 168 Barnes TTSX and 74 grains of Norma MRP. This load went exactly 1" @100M and showed we were headed in the right direction. Here's a look:
308NormaMagGroups002.jpg

Next I tried the 180 TTSX and 72.5 grains of Norma MRP. It is just a shade under 7/8" center to center. I'm getting optimistic now.
308NormaMagGroups001.jpg

I tried 73.5 grains of MRP behind the 180 TTSX, but it proved to be just a tad warm, so decided 72.5 would be the max working load with that powder/bullet.
Next I tried the 180 TTSX with 74.0 gr of IMR7828......wow!! Here is a group! right on ¼" @ 100M for 3 shots. Take a look!
308NormaMagGroups006.jpg

I then adjusted the scope slightly to move impact right, and fired 1 shot...looked like this :eek:)
308NormaMagGroups007.jpg

Cleaned the rifle at this point to check for copper fouling....next to none.
Then I tried some 168 TTSX with a load of 75.0 gr Norma MRP. Things are definitely coming together. While the group was a bit to the left of the 180, it is still a mighty fine group - .26" @ 100M
308NormaMagGroups004.jpg

To say I am pleased would be an understatement. Big Thank You to Bill Leeper. Looks great, and shoots even better.
Eagleye.
 
Last edited:
Try 71.5gn /IMR4350/150gr or 72gr/RE19/180gr my FN Safari puts them in one hole with either...............Harold I find recoil pleasant compared to my .338 WM
 
mbogo3 said:
Try 71.5gn /IMR4350/150gr or 72gr/RE19/180gr my FN Safari puts them in one hole with either...............Harold I find recoil pleasant compared to my .338 WM
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have what you need in your rifle, Harold. I don't think I'll be looking much further though. Thanks anyway.
As for recoil, this is not a really light rifle. The barrel is a bit heavier than a stock Remington Sporter magnum barrel, and is 26" long, so the recoil is quite manageable. :eek:) Dave.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom