The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Handguns => Topic started by: Pababear on July 16, 2015, 11:35:24 AM
-
I'm thinking of getting a J frame revolver, and the clerk suggested reduced recoil ammo.Any one ever try this?
-
I've only seen it for a shotty. Pistol ammo? I. did. not. know. that.
-
I carry a Ruger LCR every day and shoot it some for fun.
I carry +p .38 spcl. It's manageable and I can place 5 shots pretty accurately. Based on the reduced velocity of a short barrel and penetration, I personally would never use a reduced recoil ammunition.
-
I had my doubts, with a J frame and defensive ammunition. I am leaning to three or four inch barrel of a SW or a Ruger.
Now if the ammo after you shot it would be like cannon ball in size , with a recoil of a .38 , hey I'd be all set. ;D
-
I've looked at some of the ballistics but they're all from a 4" barrel on the reduced stuff.
-
Use the Speer "Short Barrel" ammo. made just for snubby pistols
-
Use Buffalo Bore. This isn't going to be a plinking gun and when your life depends on it you'll never notice the recoil.
-
Use the Speer "Short Barrel" ammo. made just for snubby pistols
Yes, I have several boxes of this in 135 gr, .38 +p that I bought a few years ago. I don't think they sell that heavy a bullet anymore. Looks like they dropped the bullet weight to 125 gr.
It's stout but manageable.
-
I could see reduced recoil for someone who was frail and for which a second shot might be very difficult with full bore ammo, otherwise, go for high quality self defense ammo.
-
The only reduced recoil ammo I ever tried was for shotguns. It helps when you're shooting slugs or buckshot. As for pistols I think I'll be buying Gold Dot short barrel ammo next since most of my pistols have short barrels. I have no need of reduced recoil pistol ammo.
-
I use the old standby for my J frame 442... Federal 125grain NyClad... I don't have to worry too much about winter coat penetration
-
This type of ammunition is misleading. "Reduced Recoil" is nothing more than Reduced POWER.
-
This type of ammunition is misleading. "Reduced Recoil" is nothing more than Reduced POWER.
Yep.
-
Lighter bullets at higher velocities can achieve the same or higher power with less recoil. Bullet weight is the most important part of the equation. I generally choose relatively light bullets for my pistols. For example, I have 165 grain bullets in my .45 ACP right now. It's +P so not exactly low recoil, but if I wanted low recoil I'd shoot a lesser caliber.
-
Powder burn rates can be manipulated to some degree to affect recoil impulse (think sharp snap versus heavy push).
Lower weight bullets do generate less recoil impulse if everything else remains the same....but then you lose some energy at the target. Increase velocity to gain more energy at the target and recoil begins increase again.
Correct that it still may be slightly less, but I don't know if it would be a small enough difference to notice in equal guns.
I crunched some numbers in a recoil calculator (two loads I shoot in my Commander 1911) and here's where the results fell:
A 230 gr slug @ 950 fps in a 2.25 lb gun gave a recoil impulse of 1.06 lbs/second, a recoil velocity of 15.14 fps, and a recoil energy of 8.01 ft/lbs.
A 185 gr slug @ 1175 fps in a 2.25 lb gun gave a recoil impulse of 1.05 lbs/second, a recoil velocity of 15.07 fps, and a recoil energy of 7.94 ft/lbs.
When shooting these two loads, I can hear a difference in the report of the gun...but can't tell much difference in felt recoil.
Other things can be done to negate 'felt recoil'....but that is totally subjective in nature.
-
Bottom line..... You can't cheat Sir Isaac Newton. Only customers of "Reduced Recoil" ammo.
-
Powder burn rates can be manipulated to some degree to affect recoil impulse (think sharp snap versus heavy push).
Lower weight bullets do generate less recoil impulse if everything else remains the same....but then you lose some energy at the target. Increase velocity to gain more energy at the target and recoil begins increase again.
Correct that it still may be slightly less, but I don't know if it would be a small enough difference to notice in equal guns.
I crunched some numbers in a recoil calculator (two loads I shoot in my Commander 1911) and here's where the results fell:
A 230 gr slug @ 950 fps in a 2.25 lb gun gave a recoil impulse of 1.06 lbs/second, a recoil velocity of 15.14 fps, and a recoil energy of 8.01 ft/lbs.
A 185 gr slug @ 1175 fps in a 2.25 lb gun gave a recoil impulse of 1.05 lbs/second, a recoil velocity of 15.07 fps, and a recoil energy of 7.94 ft/lbs.
When shooting these two loads, I can hear a difference in the report of the gun...but can't tell much difference in felt recoil.
Other things can be done to negate 'felt recoil'....but that is totally subjective in nature.
What would the muzzle energy be on these two loads?
-
What would the muzzle energy be on these two loads?
Interesting findings.
The 230 gr came out to 461 ft/lbs.
The 185 gr came out to 567 ft/lbs.
A significant difference, indeed.
These are velocities at the muzzle.....the farther away from the barrel, the lighter bullet loses energy at a much higher rate. At 50 yards, the 230gr had lost about 56 ft/lbs and the 185gr had lost about 112 ft/lbs.
The energy bleed-off shouldn't be a factor at typical combat ranges...giving the edge to the 185. I bet it would penetrate well.
**One interesting thing I noticed in the range chart after plugging in the numbers was that the energies evened out to be the same for both bullets at around 200 yards (I know we don't shoot for effect at those ranges, but the info was there) and stayed the same out to 500.
But, like my previous post, the recoil is almost the same on these loads.....if you want to reduce recoil, physics dictate that the power must decrease...... BUT, based on the calculations, using the faster lighter bullet, Frank would be correct in that, since the energy in the 185gr is considerably higher, you could reduce power (thus reducing recoil) on the 185 gr bullet and still be equal to the 230.
Hope that made sense
-
Need to find how those loads do on the FBI ballistic gelatin test for penetration, expansion and over penetration.
Their standard calls for a minimum penetration of 12 inches. Without that, it doesn't matter how much muzzle energy the round produces, it will not get to vital organs reliably. Granted that the higher the muzzle energy the more likely it will get the required penetration, but it would be good to have that verified objectively.
With expansion, the more the better as long as the penetration is adequate. With .45 rounds, I'd more interested in making sure there was plenty of penetration first.
Penetration over 18 inches is more of a safety issue than a performance issue, however, "they" say that if the bullet leaves the target all the available energy is not delivered to the target. To me, this is a relative concern. If enough energy is delivered to reliably damage the target it is not a major performance problem. I imagine a 50BMG bullet will over penetrate most every human target at self defense ranges but no one is gonna lose sleep over the energy not delivered to the target.
One thing over penetration might indicate is that the round could be just as effective with less muzzle energy.