I'm with you on this Eric. I never felt or heard the shot when I was taking game or shooting trap. Ear plugs helped when target shooting
Smooth bore recoil?
- Thread starter westrayer
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Hey guys, we’re not talking about shooting at game, … get with the program … and address the question ASKED …not the one NOT asked, LOL!
We are just looking for empirical evidence, one way or the other, for which recoils more.
We are just looking for empirical evidence, one way or the other, for which recoils more.
You forgot that we are comparing guns of EQUAL weight, equal profile/stock design and equal charge, just to compare recoil in a rifle to a smoothbore.Weight of the gun should be a factor as well as the grain & type of powder & load being used..
My 9 lb .54 cal rifle with 70 grns of fffg & a prb vs My 6.5 lb smoothbore with 70 grns of fffg & 2 ounces of # 6’s…
You be the judge…
Flint62smoothy,
“You forgot that we are comparing guns of EQUAL weight, equal profile/stock design and equal charge, just to compare recoil in a rifle to a smoothbore.”
Maybe you forgot too read the original post…
I don’t see any thing about anything being equal….
Now correct me if I’m wrong…..
Otherwise do your own comparison and I’ll stand bye mine…
I’ve shot enough too know the difference….
All things being equal the rifle “might” have more felt recoil due too the rifling causing what minor drag on the load it does…
Could possibly be louder too….due too more compression on the load caused by the drag on the load being shot.
I hammer balls into my .54 rifling, I wouldn’t dare hammer a ball down a smoothbore, there’s no forgiveness once it’s stuck..
That’s why it’s called the dark side….
Stuff happens!
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
- Messages
- 276
- Reaction score
- 345
Ok I've thought about this a bit, (I know, that's dangerous.) and my high school science teacher said, "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." If we can all agree to that lets consider two identical guns, one rifled, one smooth bore say a.58 TC Renegade with the same length/weight barrels. the rifled gun has a .575 tightly patched round ball and 80g of the powder of your choice, the smooth bore has the same powder and charge but a loose wad and a bare ball with a thin OP wad on top. The PRB will shoot at "x" FPS. the bare ball load will shoot with a little less velocity due to a little bit of blow-by. this means that the PRB has slightly more energy than the identical bare ball. now "X" amount of energy in one direction equals "X" amount of energy in the other direction. It would seem that in this case with everything else being exactly the same that the smooth bore would have slightly less free recoil, and since the guns and stocks are identical there should be no effect on perceived recoil.
Just food for thought.
Just food for thought.
There should be no difference in the reccoil of a , for instance, round ball shot at 1,200 fps and a load of shot weighing one ounce at the same velocity, assuming the weight of the guns are also equal. equal and opposite reactions, and all of that. But, the shape of the stock, how the gun is held, etc., can definitely influence the subjective felt recoil.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2015
- Messages
- 5,023
- Reaction score
- 3,611
The equal force in opposite directions assumes a vacuum I believe. Also friction enters the equation. If one gun uses a greased patch and another a dry patch and all else is equal there is probably a difference in recoil although it is likely negligible in terms of what is felt. Now if I use a felt wad….
Doesn't bilraby's reply #18, the quote of WW Greener, a man who surely knew what he was talking about, answer the OP's question? It does for me, especially if you also consider what TCMonts adds in reply #24.
I’ve never really noticed recoil from any muzzleloader. I don’t think the projectile weights are generally heavy enough, per bore size, to produce excessive recoil.
If you load it heavy enough , You can fell it….
Smoothbore bye the way….
Smoothbore bye the way….
Actually if one was shooting a .530 ball of 224 grains in the rifle and one was shooting an ounce of shot (438 grains) all other factors being equal, the shotgun has more recoil. More mass one way, more recoil the other way.
The reason why he says that is as the guys have written, perceived recoil..., but also applied recoil.
Huh?
So a shotgun often has a much wider butt plate area, and often has rounded edges, even with a metal buttplate compared to a rifle. Rifles often have thinner butt areas, and more pronounced points on the butt plates in some cases. So WHILE the recoil from that ounce of shot is actually more than say a .530 round ball..., the pounds-per-square-inch applied to the shooter may be higher from the rifle because the surface area provided to disperse that recoil is less than the shotgun's.
So even if the force of the recoil was the same, the dimensions of the butt may amplify one or the other stocks' rearward pounds psi...
LD
The OP wants to see if a smoothbore recoils less than a rifled gun. I imagine he's a guy who might be hankering for a test of two guns, as equal in weight as possible, same caliber and grain weight ball and same powder charge amount, with the rifle launching a tightly patched ball and the musket shooting a ball perhaps backed and fronted with some tow, etc. A simple set-up using a weighted bench top cradle, the kind used for gun cleaning perhaps, sliding along a table top ought to work. Start the sled at the same point each time and measure the distance it moves. That ought to do it. I would be happy to try but I don't own a smoothbore musket. Anyone have the equipment, time, desire?
Given the same bore size, shooting the same charge and weight of the projectile, the rifle will give more recoil because you are lifting the ball up an inclined plane.
My, My - aren't we cranky today - too much St. Patty's Day?
Equal and opposite reaction. Most rifle's fire their projectile faster than a smoothbore fires its projectile, so that could mean more recoil. On the other hand the recoil is determined by total weight of mass exiting, and total amount of mass being moved among other factors. So, if you're shooting an ounce out of a smoothbore and shooting 300 grains out of a rifle the smoothbore will have more mass exiting to start. But now factor the weight of the gun and it may equal out or reverse positions.
There's a big difference in actual recoil (calculated) and felt recoil. Shotguns tend to spread the recoil over a larger surface area due to a wider butt plate. The slower velocity of the projectile moves the gun backwards into the shooter slower something with more velocity. So, the shotgun recoil is spread out over a larger area, and over a longer period of time. That could make the felt recoil less than the actual recoil. In fact, the actual recoil of the shotgun might be more than a rifle, but the rifle is pushing the "recoil' into a smaller space, faster so it feels like it is more. Too many variables, you'd need to do the math and then use a recoil gauge that captures recoil speed and square inches of distribution.
There's a big difference in actual recoil (calculated) and felt recoil. Shotguns tend to spread the recoil over a larger surface area due to a wider butt plate. The slower velocity of the projectile moves the gun backwards into the shooter slower something with more velocity. So, the shotgun recoil is spread out over a larger area, and over a longer period of time. That could make the felt recoil less than the actual recoil. In fact, the actual recoil of the shotgun might be more than a rifle, but the rifle is pushing the "recoil' into a smaller space, faster so it feels like it is more. Too many variables, you'd need to do the math and then use a recoil gauge that captures recoil speed and square inches of distribution.
Recoil: What matters is that this is an *inelastic* collision in reverse, so momentum (M*V), which is what is meant by 'action', is conserved, but not energy [(M*V^2)/2]. The momentum of the discharged rifle in the reverse direction is equal to the momentum of the ball and patch plus the momentum of the propellant gasses in the forward direction. The way you measure recoil is to hang the rifle from two cords to make a pendulum and measure how far the rifle swings to the rear, from which the momentum can be calculated with reasonably good accuracy. You will probably want to add a sandbag to the butt of the stock to simulate the shooter's active upper body mass. The forward momentum can be calculated for the ball and patch based on muzzle velocity measurement, but the momentum of the propellant gases are more difficult to estimate. It is significant, because the velocity of the gas is *much* higher than that of the ball. Possibly some differential measurements with different powder weights all else being equal can be made to provide data for a linear regression analysis. For my rifle, a .495 round ball weighs 181 grains, a patch maybe 10 grains (?) and the powder charge is about 70 grains. Most of the powder, now gas, is moving at least a couple times the speed of the ball when it leaves the muzzle. Consider how a muzzle brake works and you get the idea. I would suggest that small variations in powder load would completely overwhelm any sensation of difference in recoil due to smooth vs. rifled bore. YMMV. If anyone wants to run some experiments, it might be interesting, but someone else will need to fund the two different barrels or two complete and otherwise identical guns for the test. What seems like it should be simple physics often turns out to be more complex than it first appears.
Last edited:
Where are the myth busters when you need them?
Philip A.
36 Cl.
There is additional energy imparted to a bullet in a rifled barrel: you accelerate a spinning mass, about half an ounce, from zero to 45-50,000 rpm (in a 1:66 barrel), in a few milliseconds... I've not yet had enough coffee to do the maths, but that must kick too. Yes, the rifle resists the torque by spinning as well, but the energy is coming from the linear motion of the bullet...
Thaw your chickens. Less recoil MB FOR real answers? Lost me on anything gun related when they and the FBI exspurt said the trace comes from the paint burning off.
That's an interesting observation from the shop owner! While it may seem counterintuitive, there is some truth to the idea that smoothbore muzzleloaders can have less perceived recoil compared to rifled ones.
The primary reason for this is the way the projectiles interact with the barrel. Smoothbore barrels don't impart any spin on the projectile, which means that the energy transfer to the projectile is not as efficient as in a rifled barrel. As a result, more energy is dissipated as heat and muzzle blast, rather than being transferred to the projectile and then back into the shooter's shoulder as recoil.
In contrast, rifled barrels grip the projectile and spin it, resulting in more efficient energy transfer and, consequently, more felt recoil. Of course, there are other factors that can influence perceived recoil, such as the weight of the firearm and the type and amount of powder used, but in general, smoothbore muzzleloaders do tend to kick less than their rifled counterparts.
The primary reason for this is the way the projectiles interact with the barrel. Smoothbore barrels don't impart any spin on the projectile, which means that the energy transfer to the projectile is not as efficient as in a rifled barrel. As a result, more energy is dissipated as heat and muzzle blast, rather than being transferred to the projectile and then back into the shooter's shoulder as recoil.
In contrast, rifled barrels grip the projectile and spin it, resulting in more efficient energy transfer and, consequently, more felt recoil. Of course, there are other factors that can influence perceived recoil, such as the weight of the firearm and the type and amount of powder used, but in general, smoothbore muzzleloaders do tend to kick less than their rifled counterparts.
