How much gas return system cuts down recoil?

[creet]

Hi guys,

This will be one for the primary producers or army shooters.

In terms of recoil, how does a semi/full auto rifle with a gas return compare to a bolt action?

A full auto isn't on the cards obviously (just asking while I'm on the subject), but I'm looking into semi's for a mate with a serious shoulder injury who is also a farmer.

Recoil would be the primary factor here, not the rate of fire.

Is a semi-auto worth getting for this reason alone?

[Khan]

I have a pair of army buddies who reckon there is a little less perceived recoil.

I haven't shot them myself, but best description from them was "a bit".

Just a noticeable difference from what they nothing, nothing to write home about...

[Lorgar]

TBH, in my experience the "benefit" of reduced recoil from a semi/FA is a bit of an internet tale by, I suspect, people who've barely or never used either.

I'm sure on paper for a single shot or something like that it's technically less recoil, in practice though not really.

I regularly shoot a .243 and .308 bolt action. .308 is about my limit for what I can comfortably shoot for extended periods.

I might do 80 or 90 rounds at the range with my .308 and after that I'm definitely feeling it in my shoulders.

For comparison, I've shot AK47's and M4's. It's a completely different shooting experience which I don't think you can measure on the same terms.

On paper their might be some benefit, but being able to send them out so quickly cancels any benefit I found. Less recoil doesn't mean anything when it's applied at 100x the rate.

An M4 is only a 5.56, After sending out 30 rounds in 2 seconds you feel it more than cycling a few rounds with the .243 Win.

[Lorgar]

Sorry, forgot to say my actual point there...

My point was, if he's looking to take care of his shoulders, I'd suggest finding a friendly calibre, rather than pushing it and hoping for a semi auto to take the edge off.

[Broom]

For comparison, I've shot AK47's and M4's.

Aaaaaand you're inviting me over to shoot these, when?

[lole]

If he's a primary producer then go for a semi-auto by all means.

Probably not going to be the answer to his problems in terms of recoil though as mentioned above.

What's he hunting? Pests I guess?

A gentle .223 might be his best option rather than fiddling with anything more powerful if he's trying to take it easy on the old shoulders.

[on_one_wheel]

Every action has an equal and oppisite reaction... It reduces the recoil by as much energy as it takes to action the firearm on the first shot... Most noticable on a 12 gauge.

[creet]

Hmm, thanks guys.

I think I might be doing this cart before horse at the moment.

It's been a while since he's shot anything and I guess should really get a feel for what calibres he can reasonably handle.

I supposed I was hoping that everyone would come on and say "Oh, yes, 50% less recoil!" or something easy like that

We'll get him behind a few rifles and see how he goes with different calibres first.

Cheers.

[RDobber]

I supposed I was hoping that everyone would come on and say "Oh, yes, 50% less recoil!" or something easy like that

Let me just check the shooting dictionary...

Hmm...

Nope, "easy" isn't in there.

[Will]

Let me just check the shooting dictionary...

Hmm...

Nope, "easy" isn't in there.

I was hoping the word "cheap" would be in there too...

I was disappointed

[teedo]

For comparison, I've shot AK47's and M4's.

It's a completely different shooting experience which I don't think you can measure on the same terms.

Where are you getting to use these?

[Lorgar]

Aaaaaand you're inviting me over to shoot these, when?

Some time between now and never

Where are you getting to use these?

In the US.

Not my everyday gear sadly.

[huccl]

Damn yanks having all the fun.

[creet]

All good in the end so far.

My mate ended up getting a straight pull Browning T-Bolt in 22mag and isn't having any drama at all with it.

Keen for a .223 now from the looks of things.

[Wheelbarrow]

My mate ended up getting a straight pull Browning T-Bolt in 22mag and isn't having any drama at all with it.

Keen for a .223 now from the looks of things.

If he couldn't take the recoil from a 22mag he's in serious trouble

Good to hear he's got his first shooter though

[Ken]

Anything which recoils heavier than you're used to feels like a lot the first few times.

.223 next and if all goes well a .243 shouldn't be too much of a stretch, that should cover everything he'd ever need on the farm and give him a small game rifle as well.

[headspace]

Most military ammo is loaded slightly lower than commercial, with greater tolerances, and less powder capacity. This is to cater for full auto and semi auto. However while I was in green I qualified on SLR, AR, M60 plus 9mm pistol and 3.5 rocket launcher. The M60 could be fired all day with little recoil problems because the weapon had a certain amount of recoil absorbsion in the way the action operated, plus the bloody weight of the thing plus a couple of hundred rounds of 7.62. The SLR kicked fairly well but I don't recall having any dramas. Then when you got to the AR which was a full auto version of the SLR with a heavy barrel folding bipod forend and 30round mag plus long range sights, it would climb up and to the right on any more than 3-4 round bursts. IT also proved to be highly unreliable with far too many feed issues. It needs to be remembered that military weapons are designed to put out a screen of fire, and producing a wounded opposition soldier means having 3 or 4 others having to leave the fight to take him to safety. Accuracy still belongs to the bolt gun.

[AlanK]

It needs to be remembered that military weapons are designed to put out a screen of fire, and producing a wounded opposition soldier means having 3 or 4 others having to leave the fight to take him to safety. Accuracy still belongs to the bolt gun.

Hmm, interesting thought...

With all the money they pour into defence I'd have through they'd have worked the highest accuracy rounds they could for all their standard issue weapons?

(Not saying you're wrong, just hadn't heard this before.)

[headspace]

Army shooters are still trained to use ammunition with as much accuracy as possible. However in the middle of a firefight there's not a lot of time for hold, aim squeeze. The idea of supressing fire is to generate confidence on the part of the soldier doing the shooting and to demoralise the opposition. I WW11 it took something like 10,000 round on average to produce one KIA. Accuracy and belt fed weapons are seldom mutually compatible, in fact the Bren gun of WW11 was considered TOO accurate. One the ground back in SE Asia you carried all your ammo for maybe a week or two of patrolling. If things got sticky you might get a resupply. So you tended not to get too extravagant on the use of ammo. 3-4 round bursts of automatic fire was the ideal as opposed to the massive expenditure of ammo you see in some war movies. The US soldiers however did like a bit of a "brass up".

[beerd]

I WW11 it took something like 10,000 round on average to produce one KIA.

Wow, really?

Might have been worth their while trying to a new tactic or two

[headspace]

I WW11 it took something like 10,000 round on average to produce one KIA.

Wow, really?

Might have been worth their while trying to a new tactic or two

We do now, we bomb the S--t out of them.
JD

[Seconds]

We do now, we bomb the S--t out of them.

Probably with bombs that costs 100,000 times what a bullet costs

US defence debt anyone?