View Full Version : Low recoil
BuckskinJoe
05-15-10, 08:24
I am curious. Are there any documented examples of shootings in which, after the shooting, a surviving civilian (good guy) or police officer complained about the effects of excessive recoil experienced during the gun fight? Are there any documented examples in which a survivor even as much as mentioned being aware of recoil during the shooting?
Perhaps, during post-fight debriefing, someone has mentioned being adversely affected by recoil, but I suspect effects of adrenaline, auditory exclusion, time dilation, and a host of other physiological and psychological effects would result in recoil not even being noticed and, therefore, not recalled.
While I agree you'll not find too many reports of shooting survivors who complain about - or even remember - hard recoil, I wonder how many people who did not survive died because excessive recoil prevented them from properly re-engaging missed targets.
Beat Trash
05-18-10, 15:41
While I agree you'll not find too many reports of shooting survivors who complain about - or even remember - hard recoil, I wonder how many people who did not survive died because excessive recoil prevented them from properly re-engaging missed targets.
This was an alleged issue for Law Enforcement back when it was the norm to train with 38 spec wad cutter ammunition, yet carry 38+P+ or 357 mag ammunition.
This is the stated reasoning why, at least in Ohio, OPOTA requires that Departmental training ammunition be of similar weight and velocity as the issued carry ammunition.
BuckskinJoe
05-19-10, 08:02
While I agree you'll not find too many reports of shooting survivors who complain about - or even remember - hard recoil, I wonder how many people who did not survive died because excessive recoil prevented them from properly re-engaging missed targets.
Precisely my point.
If, indeed, excessive recoil prevented people involved in shootings from properly re-engaging missed targets, it is fair to assume that not all were killed. Taking it to the next step, can you cite any documented examples of such people complaining that excessive recoil prevented them from properly re-engaging missed targets?
Have you considered the possibility of somebody missing because of a flinch or lack of training due to an aversion to heavy recoil? Or how many roll without a shotgun because they can't/don't want to qualify?
I think you could find departments with more officers qualified or higher scores on the shotgun after a switch to low recoil.
BuckskinJoe
05-19-10, 15:05
Have you considered the possibility of somebody missing because of a flinch or lack of training due to an aversion to heavy recoil? Or how many roll without a shotgun because they can't/don't want to qualify?
I think you could find departments with more officers qualified or higher scores on the shotgun after a switch to low recoil.
Yes, I am very aware of flinching; although I have never flinched off a shot (yet today, that is :D) Flinching does not require much in the way of recoil. I have observed many "pre-ignition pushes" in people shooting .38 wadcutters and even .22 rimfire.
This thread is not about training, qualifying scores, or even flinching, per se.
I am asking for any documented cases of shootings where "good guy" survivors complained about one or more ill effects of recoil during the shooting. I am aware of none, but my breadth of knowledge is limited.
This thread is not about training, qualifying scores, or even flinching, per se.
But these are all part of the rationale for going with low recoil loads. Being able to train more comfortably, shoot better, and not develop a flinch are important.
I am asking for any documented cases of shootings where "good guy" survivors complained about one or more ill effects of recoil during the shooting. I am aware of none, but my breadth of knowledge is limited.
Whether or not the "good guy" survivor is aware of the recoil or not, the fact that some they can fire more rounds more rapidly than heavier recoiling rounds is a tactical advantage providing they are not sacrificing too much in terms of terminal effects.
I don't think I would opt for low recoil slugs over say a Brenneke Slug
if the gun was for defending against large dangerous game
BuckskinJoe
05-20-10, 06:08
So far, people have commented about flinching, trainiing, comfort, qualifying scores, and dangerous game.
The question remains unanswered.
Can anyone cite cases in which:
1. A "good guy" (civilian or cop) was in a shooting,
2. Fired shots from some firearm (any firearm), and
3. After the event, made some sort of complaint about some sort of negative effect of recoil?
Recoil is not a subject that would come up very often after a shooting, based on my experience.
This does not prove that recoil does not matter in a gunfight.
BuckskinJoe
05-21-10, 14:15
Recoil is not a subject that would come up very often after a shooting, based on my experience.
"not very often" indicates the subject has, indeed, come up in your experience. Are you able to document shootings in which a survivor did, indeed, mention ill effects of recoil he or she experienced in the shooting? A follow-on question is: what were the ill effects mentioned?
(As an aside, I, for one, am, in no way, "proving" or attempting to prove recoil is not a factor in shootings.)
BuckskinJoe
05-26-10, 05:14
Not even one?
People who carry "high recoil" weapons are comfortable with them. Otherwise, they would not be carrying it in the first place.
Why would a person go through the trouble of training with a handgun and getting a CCW license for it that is not comfortable to shoot, and then complain about it AFTER they fight their way out of a horrific situation like a shootout?
That's probably why you don't hear much about it.
arizonaranchman
06-06-10, 00:15
You don't feel recoil at all and the gun sounds like dull thuds as you fire under stress. Not even a factor with standard service rounds.
BuckskinJoe
06-06-10, 06:33
You don't feel recoil at all and the gun sounds like dull thuds as you fire under stress. Not even a factor with standard service rounds.
If what Arizonaranchman says is true in general, and I suspect it is, then I am unable to reconcile in my mind the advantage to 8-pellet "reduced/managed recoil" "tactical" 00 buck over 15-pellet magnum rounds that deliver almost double the wounding on each shot. The argument for speed of follow-up shots is suspect for many reasons:
The time to the first shot with either load is the same.
Two shots with "reduced recoil" 8-pellet rounds has to be slower than one shot of 15-pellets.
Even my wife, at 5' 7" and 125 lbs. can cycle magnum rounds with an 870 really quickly, and with the 11-87 there is no difference between magnum and reduced recoil loads in cycle rate.
For reduced recoil rounds to have an advantage, follow-up shots would have to be twice as fast as with as with magnum rounds.
Another argument for non-magnum rounds is magazine capacity is greater for 2 3/4" ammunition. This claim is not really true. By loading one 2 3/4" 12-pellet shell first and, then, five 3" 15-pellet rounds, the magazine capacity remains the same at six. However, with six rounds of "reduced recoil" 00 buck, there are a total of 48 pellets; whereas, we get 87 pellets, total, with the "magnum" option.
Without some documentation of confirmed OIS advantages to 8-pellet loads and confirmed OIS disadvantages to 15-pellet loads, I am hard pressed to see the advantage of shooting, basically, half as many projectiles per round and needing essentially twice as many shots to do the same damage.
However, I am not an expert in this field, and, perhaps, there is some data "out there" confirming the advantage of reduced recoil 00 buck in shootings. I just haven't encountered such to date.
Without some documentation of confirmed OIS advantages to 8-pellet loads and confirmed OIS disadvantages to 15-pellet loads, I am hard pressed to see the advantage of shooting, basically, half as many projectiles per round and needing essentially twice as many shots to do the same damage.
However, I am not an expert in this field, and, perhaps, there is some data "out there" confirming the advantage of reduced recoil 00 buck in shootings. I just haven't encountered such to date.
From my department's perspective there's a little more to it. Before we went to low recoil shotgun shells the majority of my department just didn't enjoy shooting the shotgun in training. For the most part their not gun guys. If a guy has an uncomfortable experience in training or an adverse view of the shotgun in general he won't get the shotgun out when it's truly needed. My guys have a better opinion of the shotgun since we've changed rounds a few years ago.
If carrying traditional slugs and buckshot make you feel better, carry them. Low recoil shells seem to be a better answer for my guys.
As far as feeling recoil....my OIS involved my pistol not a shotgun. I didn't hear my gun go off, I didn't feel the recoil, hell I don't even remember drawing my pistol. All I heard was his rounds impacting behind me, and I saw my round impact him. I don't think recoil was a huge problem for him either, his fundamentals just sucked. But that's just anecdotal.
Matt
...he won't get the shotgun out when it's truly needed.
And how many pellets does that put on target?
A follow up shot may be needed after a missed shot. The number of pellets that flew by your target doesn't matter, how fast you can get another well aimed shot off may.
There is nothing "wrong" with your standard recoil loads, but you seem to be intentionally ignoring any reason reduced recoil may be a better option for some.
mpd046--Good post; fully concur.
You could use the same logic to say that shotguns do not need recoil pads since there is little to no complaints about recoil during gunfights.
BuckskinJoe
06-07-10, 21:38
You could use the same logic to say that shotguns do not need recoil pads since there is little to no complaints about recoil during gunfights.
Huh? :confused:
Perhaps your logic but not mine.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.