Some help on recoil..

todbartell said:
yes you're right, I should of added the B&C stock wasnt hollow, but it did absorb it way better.
Click to expand...

I'm still confused how a ridgid stock can absorb recoil. Unless it actually flexes or compresses it's not possible. I can't see one ridgid material absorbing recoil better than another. I can see a well fit stock offering less felt recoil because of fit but not because of construction material.
 
I'm sorry you're confused. Fiberglass does flex a bit which aborbs the physical shock when firing a rifle. Another example Ive seen was a friend's custom 416 Rem which we shot in a tupperware stock while his McMillan was being built. It was downright brutal to shoot. A few months later we bedded his Mcmillan, went to the range with the same ammo, and the recoil was greatly tamed. Plastic is inexpensive, and that's why most rifle makers put them on their rifles, especially models in the $1000 or less range
 
No, I don't think I'm that confused to think that fibreglass flexes enough to considerably reduce recoil.
 
I had a cheap factory remington synthetic stock on my custom 300 ultramag to test some loads until the mcmillan arrived.Then I had the mcmillan installed,and was very pleased by the huge reduction in felt recoil.The plastic may have flexed more,but the mcmillan was much more comfortable to shoot.The weight of both stocks were quite similar.
 
I had the same problem with a Rem 700 in 7mm mag.In the factory wood stock it was a real pain,I put a Bell&Carson stock on it and the recoil seemed to be cut in half or more.It could be the stock geometery was ill suited to my build I don't really know but the Bell sure make what was a shoulder killer in to a nice shooting rifle
 
strange..you guys must of been mistaken...there is no way a fiberglass stock can somehow absorb the recoil energy better than injection molded tupperware...:)
 
strange..you guys must of been mistaken...there is no way a fiberglass stock can somehow absorb the recoil energy better than injection molded tupperware..
Click to expand...

I have used wood stocks,factory plastic,H-S Precision,and Mcmillan.The macmillans were always the most comfortable to shoot.I liked them so much,I bought six of them over the years.
 
Well I won't join the debate over the science of it all, but I will say that when I recently changed the injection molded plastic stock on my Rem 700 30/06 for an HS Precision sporter stock (very close in weight to the tupperware stock), the recoil reduction shooting 180 grain bullets @ 2750 fps was very noticeable. Is the geometry of the stocks so different as to explain the recoil reduction? I'd doubtful -- they're both fairly similar in style, dimensions of the butt, etc. Heck, the tupperware stock even had a Limbsaver recoil pad, which the HS didn't (it uses a fairly thin Pachmayer Decelerator pad that visual inspection would suggest has to be less effective than the Limbsaver).

But in the end, though, the shoulder doesn't lie. Recoil is noticeably less using the much stiffer HS Precision stock. Y'all can think what you want. The only one I have to listen to is my shoulder... :)
 
I'd suggest a PAST pad for the range. We're talking an 06 here, shoot lots. Just get used to it, an 06 should be well within the recoil tolerance of anyone willing to put in a little practice time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom