*TESTED* Powder type and charge vs felt recoil

Been looking at loading tables and various powders and charge weights per expected velocity with the same such and such bullet and weight.

Some loads give lets say 3000fps with 65gr of XYZ powder.
Another load specs 55gr of ABC powder.

Given the same exact rifle, and other components at same COL and velocity, will the lower powder charge at same pressure recoil less?

Do you think/feel/know that the felt recoil is usually less, more or the same when loading lets say 83gr Ramshot LRT, vs 68gr H1000 at the same pressure ie 63kpsi?

Essentially is powder charge weight the most important component of recoil assuming equal pressures and the same bullet in same rifle?

If yes that the lower charge equals less felt recoil at similar velocity levels than I think I may revaluate my powder selection process.
Try these recoil calculators to help you better understand the factors affecting recoil.

https://shooterscalculator.com/recoil-calculator.php

https://bisonballistics.com/calculators/recoil

https://calculator.academy/rifle-recoil-calculator/

https://robrobinette.com/Gun_Recoil_Calculator.html
 
Competition with a .505 Gibbs?? Large diameter bullet holes will cover more area and might get into the next higher scoring ring where a tiny .30 caliber bullet would not. A ..60 caliber might boost an X count better. Hate to shoot a string of 20, prone with that monster. Any chrony data with various loads??

With my .375-.338 felt recoil is completely dependent on velocity with same bullet as powder capacities only vary 6% and I see no reason why powder gas velocities should have much difference as pressures are similar. The rifle eats up a max of 72.5 grains of H4350 and max of 68.0 grains of IMR 4064 with 270 Speer, can't feel the difference, but with 235 grain bullets and a minimum load of 4064 like 67 grains recoil is much like a .300WM.

The 270 Speer btsp, at 2650 has a trajectory much like a .308W with 168's. I managed to hit a 1/2 gallon size rodent (rockchuck, apex rodent of western USA) with it at 250 yards using a tripod but the effects on the rodent were not as spectacular as the .20 P shooting a 40 grain at 3650.

The calculation provided by academy claims to be momentum, P=M*V, but academy gets into some involved calculation similar to that of kinetic energy. For a 180 grain bullet at 3000 fps from a 10 pound rifle academy comes up with 359.65 ft-pounds, good for a visit to your friendly orthopedic medic. Sounds screwy with a peculiar convoluted method.

Screenshot (997).png


The calculation by shooters calculator for a 10 pound .300WM, comes up with 12.36 fps rifle velocity & 23.73 foot pounds of momentum. My spread sheet came up with 12.543 fps rifle velocity & 24.46 ft pounds of momentum. Recoil impulse is provided in pound seconds, I got to,put that in my spread sheet.

Screenshot (999).png

Bison comes up with 24.6 ft-pounds to my 24.46. Then it gets into a kinetic energy calculation, like 1/2 M*V squared. For a 10 pound rifle, KE = (10/32 * (12.36*12.36))/2 = 23.67 ft-pounds. 10 pounds = .31 slugs, acceleration of gravity 32 fps ps. KE = (.31 * 152.7)/2 = 23.66 ft-pounds. Bison calculator comes up with 24.6 ft-pounds, my spread sheet showed 24.46 ft-pounds of momentum. Bison shows conservation of momentum then gets into kinetic energy like 1/2 M* V squared - this method would come up with 23.67 ft-pounds. Bison puts powder gas velocity at 1.5 times more than bullet velocity, like 3000 * 1.5 = 4500 fps, I used 5200 fps.

Screenshot (998).png

Robinette comes up with 29.78 ft-pounds of recoil , what is "2g" divided into ( gun vel ^2 * gun weight) ?. Gas velocity effects provided but actual gas velocity not provided. Indications of momentum as effects of bullet velocity should rifle be suspended vs slamming into person's body. Powder gas velocity for Robinett is 1.7 times bullet velocity or 1.7*3000 = 5100 fps, I used 5200 fps. Good discussion & great graphs of m brakes.

Screenshot (1000).png

Feel free to copy my spread sheet, it allows multiple same screen comparisons of various combos, simple momentum calculation P=M*V, can be easily run on excel. rifle velocity calculations shown on top of spread sheet.Powder gas velocities can be easily changed. My numbers are real close to those produced by the calculators.

Here is another recoil calculation

Screenshot (1001).png

Loads with different burn rate powders having equal velocities don't have much differences in felt recoil but the loads having less powder have slightly less calculated recoil as a result of the powder weight times powder velocity calculation, jet effect described by Robinette. Loading to max pressures with suitable powders there would likely be less than 12% difference in weight between both; this would be reflected by the momentum calculation. The dwell time for bullet acceleration inside the barrel is 1.0 to 1.5 milliseconds for slow & fast burning powder and I cannot feel any difference, 1 to 1.5 milliseconds is real short.

Objective - based on facts & data
Subjective - based on feelings, that hard steel stock butt plate don't feel good.
 
Last edited:
I was just running some 168-200gr out my 300WM. I had 4 different powders being tested. Because I was shooting them all back to back, I found a just noticeable difference in less felt recoil with one powder over the others and it was only 20FPS slower. There is something to burn rates and powder composition that let some produce same with less recoil.
 
I was just running some 168-200gr out my 300WM. I had 4 different powders being tested. Because I was shooting them all back to back, I found a just noticeable difference in less felt recoil with one powder over the others and it was only 20FPS slower. There is something to burn rates and powder composition that let some produce same with less recoil.
Thats what Im sayin. Its neat how some jus shoot softer than others and can be movin about same speeds.
 
So ive seen these. The first 3 all basically or literaly the same. Ive used the first number of times. Theyre pretty straight forward and make total sense. But they dont address what Im askin which is why i posted.
The last one has potential to answer my question if it had a way to incorporate burn rates or some other qualifying and quantifiable factor .

Like if burn rates charts had a energy potential alongside them. As in:
H4831SC has burn rate #76 with energy rating #6.8 when used with a 30-06 case and bullet weights from 160-180gr.

Then the user guide could provide a few rules about which combinations provide what. Thatd be helpful info, if it was available for no or little cost, included in a loading manual or something.
 
So ive seen these. The first 3 all basically or literaly the same. Ive used the first number of times. Theyre pretty straight forward and make total sense. But they dont address what Im askin which is why i posted.
The last one has potential to answer my question if it had a way to incorporate burn rates or some other qualifying and quantifiable factor .

Like if burn rates charts had a energy potential alongside them. As in:
H4831SC has burn rate #76 with energy rating #6.8 when used with a 30-06 case and bullet weights from 160-180gr.

Then the user guide could provide a few rules about which combinations provide what. Thatd be helpful info, if it was available for no or little cost, included in a loading manual or something.
All of them as well as reloading manuals, and what SAAMI has in calculating recoil (felt/perceived) are simulations or references and YMMV. If you want an actual measurement, you need a means to measure the actual force/energy generated by a load combination. Ultimate Reloader had a similar set-up when they measure muzzle brake reduction effectiveness. His set-up was not cheap. He also wriote the software program to show what he was trying to measure.

A savvy QL or GRT end-user might be able to do a more informative simulation.

In your example in #1, whichever load combination has the higher energy would probably generate more felt/perceived recoil.

Good luck!

ADDED: This is with 190 Berger VLD out of my .30 Gibbs; same COAL/CBTO.

61g H4831SC, MV=2599 FPS/E=2850 FT-LBS

56g RL-17, MV=2778 FPS/E=3256 FT-LBS
 
Last edited:
I must admit I have never considered this hypothesis mainly because I have not felt any noticeable differences in the cartridges I test and the respective powders for those test loads. Generally speaking, I care about precision of a test load far more than felt recoil. Both in velocity variance and group size. When shooting any rifle that has significant recoil, I reduce the recoil with a lighter bullet, a brake, a suppressor, or a combination of a lighter load and a muzzle device.
So I guess I'll ask...does it matter?

@FEENIX
 
I'll go on record as to different powders giving different recoil impulses with the same bullet.

Shooting 7mm-08AI with the 140gr Berger VLDH for example.

The recoil impulse from RL16 was sharp and harsh!
Way more than RL17, RL15, PP2000MR, H414, IMR4350.

Which seems strange because the PP2000MR is the fastest burning of those choices.
 
When shooting any rifle that has significant recoil, I reduce the recoil with a lighter bullet, a brake, a suppressor, or a combination of a lighter load and a muzzle device

I don't use any of the above methods…..I simply, pull the rifle tightly into the shoulder, carefully achieve target picture, inhale deeply releasing about 1/2 while maintaining target picture, grit my teeth, close my eyes, and jerk the trigger!

But, you have to be "very" consistent to get good groups! 😜 memtb
 
I must admit I have never considered this hypothesis mainly because I have not felt any noticeable differences in the cartridges I test and the respective powders for those test loads. Generally speaking, I care about precision of a test load far more than felt recoil. Both in velocity variance and group size. When shooting any rifle that has significant recoil, I reduce the recoil with a lighter bullet, a brake, a suppressor, or a combination of a lighter load and a muzzle device.
So I guess I'll ask...does it matter?


@FEENIX
Yep, I started using it in 2003 to mitigate recoil issues regardless of safe load combinations (powders, primers, bullets, burn rates, etc.) or type of recoil (sharp, push, etc.). I do not like to complicate things unnecessarily, especially when there is a better resolution for the issue. So, no, it does not matter. But that's just me.
 
One more side note I will add:

This may be a little off target, but I have had test loads that were very spicy and yes, I could physically feel the difference in the recoil of the rifle. Like a substantial increase. These loads were also while using a muzzle device.

So, regardless of powder and projectile used in whatever cartridge, I ensure the final load used chambers without fail and and NO pressure issues regardless of ambient air temperatures. I've found my range finder, ballistics calculator, and reliable scopes will get the projectile on target...albeit a touch slower. Again, accurate and precise loads trump high velocity...for me anyway.
 
As this appears to be a topic purely based on curiosity…..I got nutt'n for you!

I suspect that powders of different burn rates producing different velocities do influence the recoil…..both in ft/lbs and recoil impulse. But, I've never considered that as important.

For my self and my purposes…… I always try to get the most performance and accuracy possible, with "my desired bullet"! I don't punch paper or ring steel at extended ranges, though that may be done on the rare occasion……it's a hunting rifle! memtb
 

Recent Posts

Top