# short mag recoil



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I noticed there was a discussion awhile back on here, involving Kiwi98j and natemil373, among others, concerning whether or not the new short mags can actually recoil less than their longer counterparts. That is a rather popular discussion.

Just wondering if anyone has actually seen any scientific data that explains how two similar bullets can be driven to like velocity with two different levels of recoil. The pros say it's all due to the smaller powder mass in the wsm's as compared to the original magnums (300wsm vs 300win mag for example) but the cons, of which I must admit I am siding with, believe the smaller powder mass is just one leg of the equation that produces the net force, which in turn determines the final velocity. And since Newton's law says that force has to push both ways equally, just curious if anyone knows how it's possible to push lighter towards the shooter than towards the bullet.

The pros place most of their evidence on the second stage of recoil, but I haven't figured out yet how to compute either stage accurately since most every formula I can find asks for rifle weight as the first variable, and that is not part of the equation if you're trying to compute actual recoil generated by the force pushing the bullet down, and then out of barrel. Rifle weight is only necessary to compute how hard the rifle hits your shoulder, or "felt" recoil, I guess, after inertia, friction and gravity have affected the final recoil velocity of the rifle.

Opinions on whether or not it kicks more or less are fine, but I'm really looking for theories and/or formulas to support either argument.

Thank you in advance for any and all input.


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

I think a snazzy marketing campaign is hard at work here!! My "plain" 300 Winchester magnum handily outclasses any 300 WSM on the market by 200+ FPS. 200gn Bullets at a chronographed 3020FPS, 180gn bullets at a chronographed 3249FPS. My "plain" 270 Win runs very close with the WSM. 140gn Barnes Triple shocks chronongraphed @ 3100FPS. Both of these rifles are factory Win 70 SS classics, the 300 has a factory 26" tube and the 270 is a factory 22" FWT pipe. The 300 and 7 WSM are scarecly faster than a good handloaded 30-06 or 280, and the AI version of either would run right with a WSM.

So when you see written "the ??? WSM only recoiled slightly more than my 30-06/280/270", etc, well DUH, it only slightly outperforms it too.

I think the mythbusters need to get some sensors in the shoulder of their test dummy and fire a couple hundred rounds downrange.

:strapped:

Now, I do think the 300 WSM is a good choice to fill in the 30 cal gap, but I wouldn't buy one to replace a 30-06 or a 300 Win, same with the 7, I think they fill that .284 gap, but no better or worse than a 280 or 7 Rem. The 270 WSM does have an advantage against it's "standard" counterpart, but not much, and certainly not enough to replace an existing 270 Win.

The "rifle circle" goes like this. Everyone needs a 6# rifle, including scope and shells, you only really need it to shoot 300yds at most, most game is taken at this range. Now, move to heavy-for-caliber bullets and load these rifles to the cutting edge of saftey, recoil be damned, we need more range. Next wildcat's like the Ackley Improved etc gain popularity, faster heavy bullets mean even more range, but recoil is becoming an issue. Now you need a magnum, and it should be 9# or better to keep recoil from becoming an issue, you might even try a muzzle break. Now I need a bigger magnum, one that spits 180gn bullets @ 3500FPS, 12# is OK, so is $80/box of ammo. Holy smokes, I only shot this rifle 7 times this year, the muzzle break is deafening, it's hard to hike very far W/12# strapped to my shoulder, and this ammo is way too expensive. Oh look, it's a new magnum, it's smaller, a little slower, doesn't kick so hard, and doesn't cost more than a tank of gas in a suburban for a box of shells, sign me up!! Or the short story goes, light rifle, heavy rifle, light rifle, heavy rifle. The WSM's have filled the gap between the "standard" calibers and true "magnums" that used to only be filled by good reloaders and AI wildcatters.

That doesn't really answer the recoil question other that to say the recoil of the WSM/SAUM is somewhere between a "regular" magnum and a "standard" caliber because that's where it's performance is.


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

As it was put above the 300 short mag is just a bit up on the 300 so recoil might be a factor. But I have a cousin who thinks the short mag has less recoil. I also seen that a 270wsm out does the 270 and so forth. Some of these rounds though only out do by a very small margin...i.e. 243 vs. 243wssm ballistics of .393 and .400. Not much difference. It's like splitting hairs. Though I have been told, shown, and calculated the recoil of a 25-06 and a 25wsm and the come out the same. I can say that some rounds though have gotten a bad rap and are not looked upon nicely. I have come to understand that as a rule of thumb, if a cal produces more velocity and more energy then it probably has more recoil. But then again with these wssm and wsm it might not be a noticeable difference or even an easily measurable difference. Pluse remember the sort mags were formed from and for.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Thanks guys........

What formula are you using, Invector, to compute the .25 recoil?


----------



## Remington 7400 (Dec 14, 2005)

I shot a friend .270 WSM over the weekend, its recoil was much less than my Ruger M77 but then again, I was shooting hot handloads and he was shooting winchester factory loads.


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

Rem 7400, two things must be considered with your "felt -recoil" experience from last weekend. 1st is bullet weight, powder charge, and velocity differences between the two rifles. Second, and just as important is the surface area of the butt stock. The Ruger synthetic that is often referred to as the "paddle" stock, has ruger molded into the stock, is very narrow at the bottom, and the top for that matter, has molded in sling swivels is about the hardest kicking factory stock to ever come off an assembly line. They are short top to bottom, and very narrow, providing very little surface area to "soak up recoil". They do their job and hold the action/barrel consistantly, but are a very poor design when recoil is considered. I am talking about the first stocks from Ruger on their SS/Syn rifles, some of them had green inserts, some were black, all of them kicked hard. If your buddy has a newer rifle with a squishier pad, felt recoil will be much less


----------

