Variable-Weight Rifle to Control Recoil?

[holdencm9]

So maybe this is weird, or maybe it is mad genius. It was just an idea that popped into my head that I thought could be neat, I have no intentions to immediately implement any of these ideas on my rifle.

I was just wondering if anyone has ever thought to add temporary weight to a rifle to have it kick less, perhaps when teaching a new shooter, or working up loads. My thought was because I added one of those stock sleeves to hold extra rounds, and with even that small amount of additional mass, it seemed to recoil less. And of course any AR recoils less the more junk you hang off it. My rifle (Rem 700 ADL .308) is pretty light but not featherweight by any stretch, and I am not sensitive to its recoil, but I just thought, if you wanted to get someone accustomed to a hunting rifle, you could just add mass rather than go out to buy reduced-recoil rounds. Easy ways to do this would be to attach something to the swivel stud, or wrap lead tape around the stock, or hollow out the stock and put weight in there, just so long as it is tight and not rattling around, it should work. It wouldn't take much to add a pound or two, and that would make a big difference on a 7lb gun! Then as the shooter gains confidence (and learns about eye relief) you can slowly remove the weights till it is back to original. I know it would mess with the balance and everything, but the idea would be to use it for training/testing and then slowly taper it back. Advantage over reduced recoil rounds is practice with the actual round to be used in a hunt, and tapering off rather than jumping from one to the other. Advantage over one of those recoil-reducers is it doesn't affect LOP (and I have found those recoil-absorbers to be more trouble than they are worth because they soften the blow, but the gun seems to want to jump more.)

 

[Skribs]

Sounds like an interesting idea. One option would be a rail attachment. Another would be maybe putting something really dense in the storage compartments in the stock and/or pistol grip (if available).

Keep in mind that the more forwarrd the weight, the more it will affect how much you feel the weight, but (I don't think so, anyway) it will have any additional effect on recoil compared to adding weight behind.

 

[holdencm9]

A rail attachment is definitely optimal. For most (traditional) hunting rifles I think swivel stud is the surest bet, or as you say a storage compartment in the stock or grip if you have one.

I think you are right that regardless of where the weight is, it will have similar effect on reducing rearward felt recoil. As long as it is rigidly attached. You couldn't just put in a bunch of loose bullets to the stock and expect it to help much, literally "hang" a weight off the barrel like a pendulum. However, weight that is farther forward would help with muzzle rise I would imagine.

 

[Skribs]

Yeah but if you make it front-heavy it will feel heavier due to the leverage of forces.

 

[MistWolf]

It's an old idea. Service Rifle competitors, just for one example, have been placing lead weights in the handguards and butts of their ARS for some time

 

[holdencm9]

It's an old idea. Service Rifle competitors, just for one example, have been placing lead weights in the handguards and butts of their ARS for some time

That is interesting. I guess all great minds think alike!

I was thinking if I had a cheapo synthetic stock rifle you could also drill horizontally through the stock at a few intervals, (under the barrel) and stick some threaded rod through it. Then you could add weights with ease. It would be butt ugly though, but once you pulled out all the threaded rods it would look more or less the same, with the added benefit of some speed holes.

 

[critter]

Got a buddy whose young daughter uses a Win M70 in .308 to deer hunt. He has lead shot in the buttstock.

BTW, she is absolutely DEADLY with it. Already killed 2 8-points and a hog this year. Three shots. Has been killing deer, hogs and at least 2 bobcats for several years. She's 14 now.

First hog, she was in a box stand with mama. A sounder of pigs filled up the shooting lane. Closest was about 40 yds and mama asked if she could hit it. She said, "No, mama. I want the spotted one". It was at 125 yards.

Mama asked if she thought she could hit it. "I've got it mama". BAM---FLOP---as in DRT. She hasn't looked back since. Killed a 7-point opening day 2 years ago at about 140 yds. She's a SERIOUS hunter!

 

[helotaxi]

There are also mercury filled "recoil reducers" which go in a hole bored in the stock to add mass.

The shell holder on the stock likely changed your perception of the recoil not because of the weight, because lets face it, you added less than 0.2lb, but because you cushioned your cheeck from the transferred recoil from the stock. That can make a huge difference in how you notice recoil.

The most important thing that you can do for a new shooter to get them shooting well and handling recoil is to hand them a rifle that fits them. If they are relatively small, a rifle with reduced length of pull, even if it weighs less, will not punish them nearly as badly as one that is too big for them. Getting a good recoil pad properly fitted to the rifle is the next step. "Properly fitted" is the key. That might mean cutting the stock down to keep the LOP where it needs to be. Adding a cheek cushion is the final step.

 

[holdencm9]

The shell holder on the stock likely changed your perception of the recoil not because of the weight, because lets face it, you added less than 0.2lb, but because you cushioned your cheeck from the transferred recoil from the stock. That can make a huge difference in how you notice recoil.

Well part of it may have just been perception, but considering most of the force goes into my SHOULDER and not my cheek (ouch that would hurt) I think the mass itself had something to do with it. It was actually one of those that holds 10 and then has a little pouch as well, I had 15 round in there total, the bullets and powder weigh close to half a pound, not including the brass. So yeah, it may have been perhaps 10-15% mass.

But I agree with everything else you said about new shooters. This is partly just a thought exercise. But the fact is some people can't afford a new gun every time someone else wants to shoot.

Side note: I didn't really like the pouch on there, it got in the way, so I don't use it anymore.

 

[helotaxi]

You'd be surprised how much recoil is tranferred into your cheek. The rifle doesn't come straight back.

 

[jmr40]

You'd be surprised how much recoil is tranferred into your cheek. The rifle doesn't come straight back.

This is a big reason more modern stock designs seem to recoil less than older designs made to be used with iron sights.

Adding weight is fairly common with shotgun shooters. The extended choke tubes help add some weight to the end of the barrel. You can buy weighted mag tube caps for pump and semi shotguns to do the same.

Adding weight to the butt drastically changes balance and is not a good idea in my opinion. The guns balance point should be slightly forward for easier shooting and less felt recoil.

A guns balance and stock design is more important than weight. I have a 5 lb Kimber that is very well balanced, with a very good stock and recoil pad. Felt recoil is not bad at all.

 

[MistWolf]

Perceived recoil is why folks think short barreled rifles kick harder. They don't, they just have more muzzle blast and it's natural to think "more boom, more kick"

 

[Dentite]

Perceived recoil is why folks think short barreled rifles kick harder. They don't, they just have more muzzle blast and it's natural to think "more boom, more kick"

Unless they are lighter than a longer barreled equivalent, which is usually the case.

 

[MistWolf]

Depends. Shorter barrels usually means less velocity which in turn means less recoil