Spike Camp

Weatherby recoil

Weatherby recoil
« on: February 28, 2009, 09:06:08 PM »
Since part of the reason Weatherby hit harder is due to a longer barrel does that mean the recoil is aslo greater on the shooter?  Would a Varmint .308 with a shorter barrel have less recoilthan a standard.308 Vanguard and is it noticeable?
TraderRick
"Aim for Perfection, hit excellence"...  Vince Lombardi

Re: Weatherby recoil
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2009, 09:21:33 PM »
Recoil has little to do with the length of the barrel on a rifle. Barrel length generally affects muzzle velocity and muzzle blast. Theoretically, the longer a barrel is, the more it will increase muzzle velocity and decrease muzzle blast. The overall weight of the rifle will decrease felt/perceived recoil. Traditionally, rifles with longer/varmint barrels weigh more, and therefore recoil less, often enabling a shooter to shoot more accurately for a longer amount of time. In conclusion, shooting a light compact rifle, cambered for lets say the .308 Win, will recoil more than shooting a heavy varmint/target gun chambered for the same round. Hope this helps :)
P.S. - I like heavy guns.
Isaac

Re: Weatherby recoil
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2009, 06:45:17 PM »
Bustin,
Thanks for the feedback. I like the heavier ones too. When I hear the Weatherby info that the longer barrels generate more velocity it got me thinkin. I guess it was some stinkin thinkin.  ;D
TraderRick
"Aim for Perfection, hit excellence"...  Vince Lombardi

Re: Weatherby recoil
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2009, 07:24:54 PM »
The Weatherby magnum cartridges will generally generate more than your typical standard or magnum loads. Example: a 7mm WBY MAG will launch a bullet at a higher velocity and energy than a 7mm REM MAG would with the same bullet. This is why Weatherby's hit harder and shoot flatter, it is because of the cartridges Weatherby has it's name on, not so much the rifles themselves. Another example: If you bought a box of .30-06 bullets and shot half of them from a .30-06 Weatherby rifle with a 24 inch barrel, then shot the other half from a .30-06 Remington rifle with a 24 inch barrel, theoretically the muzzle velocities, energies, and trajectories should be the same from that batch of loads. But the great thing about Weatherby rifles are their accuracy guarantee of 1.5 MOA or 1 MOA, something that Remington does not offer. Not to say a Rem isn't capable of these groups, it just isn't guaranteed. In conclusion, if you want guaranteed accuracy, with the most power and flat-shooting factory loads, buy a Weatherby chambered for a Weatherby caliber. Again, I hope I helped.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2009, 07:28:16 PM by bustinbirds »
Isaac

Re: Weatherby recoil
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2009, 07:43:51 PM »
To bolster my previous point I will share a small factoid:
Field and Stream had a list of their most accurate rifles from 2007 and 2008.
Guess which manufacturer had the most accurate rifle...how did you know?
They tested a Weatherby Vanguard SUB-MOA SS in .30-06 that produced a .117 inch group. That is RIDICULOUS from a rifle that came right from the factory. It beat it's closest competitors smallest group by .371 inches. It had an average group of less than .4 inches. How unbelievably awesome is that. You got that right! I wanted to get an SS sub-moa anyway. But now I would have to be unbelievably STUPID to buy any other stainless steel synthetic rifle with a budget of $1000.
Isaac

Re: Weatherby recoil
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2009, 08:45:29 PM »
TR:
Consider that barrel length promotes full powder burning potential,....and in my experience; I've seen powder blown out the end of an 18" barrel.(Throw an old white sheet down, in front of your muzzle; you can see the unburn powder right readily). Of course, this is going to affect both velocity and to some degree,(in distance), accuracy. If you ever look at the serious target rifle shooters you'll note that they use 26-27 inch heavy barrels in .308. 27" barrels are OPTIMUM for the full burn potential and better velocities. I am an advocate of heavy barrel,...(actually, I'm more of a NO OTHER WAY TO GO sort of fellow), but I also know that most hunters don't want to have to carry a heavy rifle. I'm over 40,...and have been carrying a 14 lb rifle/scope combo for 30 years so I'm use to it. I use a .308 and have found it will take moose with the same ease it does taking deer and Russian boar. IF you are using a HEAVY barrel,...you can get away with a shorter,....but not if your going for distance. If your going to make shots at less than 600 yards, get a match barrel with a good target crown, then CHRONGRAPH your loads. I'd be willing to bet that an 18-20" barrel will do a good job for you. Best to you!
Kristian Selous


Re: Weatherby recoil
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2009, 05:38:18 PM »
Due to good stock design, Weatherby rifles are not that punishing in recoil.  Further, it has been my experience that the slow burning powders used in larger cases such as the Weatherby cases do not deliver the punishing recoil that faster burning powders can.   Further, the Weatherby Mark V action is quite heavy compared to most other actions, and the weight helps to absorb the recoil.

Salty

Re: Weatherby recoil
« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2009, 11:19:03 AM »
Weight of the bullet and powder charge compared to the combined weight of the rifle (if it has a scope) are the main components of recoil - "felt recoil" takes into account additional items such as recoil pad, stock configuration, shooter weight and clothes you may be wearing w/ or w/out a recoil pad on vest or shirt. Weatherby's are great at reducing the recoil in both areas in my experience. The sub MOA rifle do not all shoot under .5 moa but most I have seen are under .75 moa. For the money spent they are hard to beat in a bolt action rifle.

Re: Weatherby recoil
« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2009, 08:20:05 PM »
I have not shot my new (to me) 340 Wby yet, as I just got it and am still getting everything in order. It's a 1997 Accumark, and I am going to have a smith put a Limbsaver grind-to-fit pad on it. I also installed a fairly-stout one-piece scope base on it to add a little heft. At this point, so that I don't have to keep making incremental changes, I think I am going to also have the smith install a 11-oz mecury tube. As is common with most people, I don't think I will feel or mind the recoil in the field, but I want to minimize it when sighting in and practicing. It seems to me a good solution for this is to install a 9"-13" Harris bipod. I can sight in and practice with it installed. I assume that, at 14-oz, it will absorb a significant amount of recoil whether just hanging off the front swivel or deployed and planted on the bench/ground. And, if I am hiking up Mt. Doom to get an elk at 12,000 ft. I can easily take it off and leave it at camp. Does that make sense to anyone else?
« Last Edit: March 07, 2009, 08:23:42 PM by MarineHawk »

dubyam

  • *****
  • 4695
    • View Profile
Re: Weatherby recoil
« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2009, 09:29:25 AM »
I don't think there's anything wrong with your idea, but I'd shoot the rifle first, before I spent all that time, effort, and money to mitigate what may not be a deal at all.  If you shoot it and it's unbearable, do all the stuff you're talking about.  If you shoot it and find it workable, you're good.  If you shoot it and find you need the recoil reduction, you can add it.  Outside of that, I don't think it's going to be a huge deal - I've shot the 300Wby in a package about a pound and a half lighter than your Accumark, and it's not intolerable for 15-20rds at the range.
I believe this is a practical world, and in it I can count only on what I can earn.  Therefore I believe in work, hard work. - The Auburn Creed
The older I get, the less stock I place in what men say, and the more I place in what men do. - Andrew Carnegie