reduced recoil cartridges

If the point of the exercise is to recoil harden your pal to the point that he can tolerate a reasonable amount of recoil, I'd choose a .30/06, start him with 125 gr bullets loaded to 2600 fps, then slowly increase bullet weight and velocity as his tolerance allows. If his condition permanently bars him from enduring recoil, a reasonably heavy, 8 pound rifle in .243, or 6mm Remington, or a quarter bore like a .250 Savage, or .257 Roberts is probably prudent, and his condition will probably prevent him from enduring the rigors of hunting game that requires more gun.

Very sensible.
 
Agree with all the Vanguard II comments - I own four of them.

I will point out that the comments about them handling recoil better (paraphrasing here) is true, but not because of some engineering feat, it's simply because a VGII is "heavy" compared to just about everything else on the market.

The bare rifle tips the scales at 7lbs 12oz.

My Sporter (wood) with a 3-9X40 13oz scope, plus mounts, with a full mag/1 down the spout comes in at about 9 1/2 pounds. My Synthetic has a slightly heavier 3-9X42 "15 oz" scope, so "loaded" it's just on 9lbs 11oz.

That weight does eat up some of the recoil - so while not super easy to carry if you are going "miles" or "uphill for hours", a heavier rifle will always be easier on the shoulder than the same caliber in one of the ultra lights. So if recoil is a "major factor", forget the 5.5 pound Kimbers...
Agree ......... A Vanguard in 243 would be pretty much recoil free w/o using reduced recoil ammo.
 
Well don't see the purpose of the gun stated. So if it's just shooting at paper get the 223 version. Minimal recoil. If hunting is in the future and his health conditions are permanent then I'd opt for the 243. If you load ammo yourself the pretty much anything will do. You can download all the 30's to some acceptable level. Hell you can even download a 300wm to 308 velocities.
 
Back
Top Bottom