This is a sequel to Part 1 on this topic, which I posted almost 3 years ago. While this followup may seem long overdue, it has actually taken a full 33 months to complete my investigation and reach my final conclusions.
Since it’s been quite a while, you may have interest in reading Shooting with a Recoil-Sensitive Shoulder, Part 1. But for the sake of brevity, I’ll summarize that article right now. I told the story of needing to have my dominant right shoulder surgically reconstructed, including a total joint replacement. My goal was to continue shooting and hunting big game without damaging my new shoulder. I described the academic process with which I intended to approach the objective…discussing anatomy, recoil, and rifle design in particular. I focused primarily on rifle shooting and decided to save related discussions regarding shotguns, handguns, and bows for another (perhaps soon) time. I’ve collected and analyzed my data, and thoroughly tested and retested my results. What follows is a relatively comprehensive report.
From an anatomical perspective, I wanted to explore how rifle recoil would affect the pins, screws, sutures, adhesive, and plastic/steel components in my shoulder. I spent a significant amount of time studying the bulk modulus of biologic tissues, shear and strain relationships, and various theoretical yield limits of my shoulder based on the geometry of my reconstruction and the physics of the situation. Ultimately, what I derived from my rather complex inquiry is that every reconstructed shoulder is a unique case in and of itself. There are some similarities and generalities we can consider, but we must also respect individual differences.
This is where the blending of objective and subjective data enters the equation. I wanted to be as objective as possible, and I think I was able to do that in the case of rifle recoil. However, I needed to be somewhat subjective regarding effects to, and tolerances within, my own biology. I could determine (or look up) with some degree of certainty what a given rifle, cartridge, load, and bullet was producing in terms of recoil energy, but with regard to how that was affecting my shoulder I needed to apply some degree of intuition. In the end, this was an incredibly valuable project for me and I think many of you will find it both interesting and useful.
As an “n” of 1, I have personal experience with exactly 1 joint replacement. But, fortunately, I have professional experience with hundreds of clients (maybe over a thousand by now) who’ve had one or even multiple joint replacements throughout their bodies. From a rehab, performance, and longevity perspective, our goal is always to optimize functional outcomes and protect/preserve that joint for life. We think about range of motion, strength, stability, coordination, effective movement patterns, and the like.
But our major target with joint replacements is to protect, preserve, and prevent damage to the components. Particularly, we strive to avoid “jarring something loose.” Jarring is essentially impact, and this can be viewed in terms of both one large hit (absolute magnitude) and cumulative loading (repetitive submaximal hits). Thus, concerning firearm recoil, we want and need to know the maximum amount of recoil which is safe as well as the volume of shooting with submaximal amounts that is reasonable for the case (person) in question. So I was giving thought to these two specific considerations.
- What was the maximum recoil limit (most powerful cartridge) I could safely utilize?
- How much total shooting volume per session would be reasonable?
In my previous article, I’d referenced a rifle recoil table published by Jim Harmer of backfire.tv. It’s recently been updated and I found it to be an excellent resource. I’d also talked in Part 1 about striving for a “.243-ish” level of recoil in which perceived or felt recoil would combine recoil energy and velocity to a limit of about 10 foot-pounds (Ft-lbs) and 10 feet per second (f.p.s.), respectively. Additionally, I acknowledged how rifle weight, muzzle treatments, stock design, and recoil pads could affect this figure.
I didn’t really know for sure, but my research, guesswork, and experience – as well as communication with a number of seasoned shooters and medical professionals – led me to set my recoil energy/velocity standard at 10 Ft-lbs and 10 f.p.s. At least to begin with. Based on intrinsic, extrinsic, and terminal ballistics, I was trying to turn a 6.5 PRC into a .243, regarding recoil.
I set out to explore this project while my shoulder healed and I progressed my shooting practice with .22 rimfires and eventually 22 caliber centerfire rifles. It took about a year for my shoulder to completely heal and for me to be able to start working up to shooting rifles with (slightly) more recoil. Additionally, I required 2 full years of rehab and training to max out my shoulder’s recovery and functional status. Given the complexity of the situation, I’m happy with the outcome. My shoulder is not perfect but it’s reasonably strong in most ranges, has decent mobility, and is pain-free (as long as I’m a little careful with what I do). I feel very fortunate.
I knew I wasn’t going to be able to specifically test true recoil energy and velocity as published in the Backfire tables. I didn’t have the equipment or knowledge to undertake that. But I wanted to look at some relative differences, both within and between rifles, that potentially arose from various recoil-reducing treatments.
Testing this, using a variety of rifles (my own and those of friends) was going to require a sort of Rube Goldberg machine. I did not have access to sophisticated laboratory equipment so I decided to cobble together my own testing device. I attached an ActivForce hand-held dynamometer to a BenchMaster Cadillac rifle rest using several straps, and (yes) some duct tape. I also fashioned additional straps to secure the rifle and bolted the whole rig to a heavy oak board, which I clamped to a concrete shooting bench at the range. This setup measured force in pounds (not Ft-lbs) with no velocity reading, so my intention was to get data that was consistent and reliable if not necessarily valid. This contraption was relatively rigid and secure.
My protocol in testing was to fire 3 shots per rifle/load (some rifles with multiple loads and bullet weights), and then take the average of the 3 shots. I tested over several days but I made sure to use the same time of day and environmental conditions. Results were very consistent across each 3 shot group, with very small deviations. Interestingly, the numbers I got, because I was only measuring force in total pounds, were much higher than the published energies in foot-pounds. I expected this and wasn’t concerned by it because I was mainly focused on the relative differences produced by rifle and charge weight, muzzle treatments, etc.
The bench testing experiment yielded several interesting findings. Since this was not a scientific study published in a peer-reviewed journal, and just an inquiry by a “tinkerer,” I can make a number of summary statements. All of these are generally well-recognized in the shooting community, and there are many expert resources much more authoritative than me.
- Rifle weight has a profound effect on recoil reduction. I had the opportunity to test a couple of competition guns which belonged to friends, including several in the 16-20 pound range. When I compared data from a hunting rifle in the same caliber (weighing roughly half the weight), I found that the heavy rifles registered less than 50% on my dynamometer. This is Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion. While not a completely linear relationship, a rifle twice as heavy has the potential to recoil half as much (especially in the “felt” realm). Again, this is no surprise to serious shooters, but in the context of this article series, I’m not inclined to lug a competition rifle up a mountain. I assume that neither are you. I also got a similar result by adding dedicated rifle weights to lighter rifles, although this would not be practical in most field situations.
- Muzzle brakes, especially large directional models, can substantially reduce recoil. By over 40% in several examples. While my data supported this statement, I think one of the best references currently available is Gavin Trobe’s 30 Cal Brake Shootout from Ultimate Reloader. Using his engineering background, technical equipment, and mathematics skills, Gavin produced an excellent article and video on this subject. The major issue with brakes is that they are LOUD, as we all know.
- Silencers, or suppressors, have multiple benefits, with hearing protection and less game disturbance among them. But they also reduce recoil along with muzzle blast. I had the opportunity to test several suppressors from Silencer Central, SilencerCo, Gunwerks, and ThunderBeast. This was not an “apples to apples” comparison, but I noted energy reductions at 25-30% and this is consistent with some industry data.
- Replacement and slip-on recoil pads, such as those from Limbsaver (my favorite) or Pachmyr work to reduce felt recoil by delaying the recoil impulse (and spreading it over a slightly larger surface area) through their “squish factor.” In general, a variety of pads registered a 10-15% reduction on my crude device. There’s also a new product from Backfire called the Backstop Recoil Pad that might be worth checking out.
- Load manipulation can also reduce recoil to varying degrees. As a handloader you can “load down” a cartridge by using less powder (only to a limited extent secondary to safety rules), change the type/burn rate of the powder, and/or use a lighter bullet. Or buy “reduced recoil” factory ammunition. The problem I have with doing this is that, while it allows one to shoot a gun which would normally be considered higher-recoiling, it essentially drags the ballistics down to that of a lighter caliber. I’ll tell the story about one rifle I’m working on in this regard a bit later.
I think those approximate percentage decreases in recoil “poundage” (regardless of my simple measurements) were what I was looking for. In other words, what combination of total weapon weight, muzzle treatments and recoil pads (including the kind you wear) could I use to keep from beating up my shoulder?
Ultralight versus Reasonably Light Rifles: This is a great consideration. There are a number of experts like Ron Spomer who advocate for extremely lightweight mountain rifles. Ron is an exceptionally experienced hunter and writer and most certainly a better shooter than most of us. But he is also not necessarily a recoil-sensitive individual. I have found that those super-light 5-ish pound rifles like those from New Ultra Light Arms (NULA – now Wilson Combat) or the Kimber Mountain Ascent, kick like hell (especially in substantial calibers), are a little harder to hold steady, and tend to string shots once their pencil-thin barrels heat up. All that stated, though, these are great for advanced shooters who can work with their issues. I’m not saying they are not a viable option for certain hunters, just that I (or anyone with a recoil-sensitive shoulder) am no longer a member of the group that can use them.
In my opinion, a reasonably light rifle is one whose total weight comes in between 7-½ and 9 pounds, with scope, sling (if used), and loaded magazine. To me, that’s a great compromise, or even sweet spot, between portability and shootability. Thus, a bare rifle that weighs 6-7 pounds represents this definition. It’s heavy enough to shoot reasonably well in field conditions and light enough to carry overland all day if necessary. I understand this is a very debatable topic, but my opinion comes from decades of experience hiking thousands of miles carrying dozens of different rifles. But I realize it’s still just an opinion which is mine and only mine.
Rifle scopes factor into the weight considerations quite significantly. While you can certainly make the case that almost all effective hunting can be accomplished with a 10-power scope (and I have several), shooting (practice and longer range work) benefits from higher magnification. Because optics are dependent upon glass in addition to their mechanisms – price, quality, and weight tend to go together. Preferences for magnification and objective diameter will vary depending on hunting location. I think that for most western/mountain hunting, a scope with 2.5 to 3 power at the low end and 14-15-16 at max (depending on brand) and a 40-44mm objective, is ideal. Depending on use, preference, and total rifle weight considerations…you can hedge up or down around this range (and same for the heft of mounting systems) to either keep the rifle lighter for carrying concerns or add a few ounces to contribute to shootability and recoil reduction. For example, I’ve used a 3-9 x 36 as well as a 2.5-20 x 50 and they’ve both worked fine in the situations I employed them.
Brakes versus Suppressors: I like them both. Yes, brakes are loud but they really work. If you need maximum recoil reduction in a particular setup, brakes are superior to everything else. But you need to be very disciplined regarding hearing protection. And not just for yourself but for everyone in your party. That goes beyond courtesy to responsibility. There are only a few instances in the field when you don’t actually have time to deploy hearing protection. A jump shot in thick timber or bear defense scenarios are examples.
On the other hand, suppressors, or “cans,” are expensive but they also do the job. They reduce noise and muzzle blast (although not always to completely hearing-safe levels) and they make the shooting experience, quite frankly, more pleasant. And depending on length and design, they cut recoil as well. Game doesn’t seem to be quite as alarmed by a muffled rifle report versus a thunderous boom. This can enhance followup shot opportunities. But cans undeniably add length to the firearm. This is usually not a big problem in open country, but it can be a hassle in brushy areas or thick timber.
Recoil Pads: Comfort and fit are terms that come to mind. Comfort in regard to shooting as well as ease in mounting the firearm and length of pull. This part of our discussion includes replacement and slip-on pads applied to the rifle as well as wearable pads like the PAST models.
Replacement pads allow you to remove the existing recoil pad on your rifle and apply a new, higher-tech model. This can often be done without changing the length of pull on the buttstock. And they allow for a custom job, with some options being grind-to-fit and/or offering a variety of shims.
Slip on pads go over the existing pad and are relatively inexpensive. They change the look of the rifle and add some length/weight, but if you’re OK with that…they help. I have a long neck and long arms, so in the past I’ve added these to some rifles with the specific intention of increasing L.O.P. I’ve also ordered a few custom stocks over the years with an additional length ½-inch greater than the standard offering. If you are mostly shooting prone with a bipod or on field rests where you have plenty of time, you might not mind the extra length. But in fast-shooting situations these can impair performance. Just something to think about and practice with.
Wearable pads, on the shooter, are very helpful during extended range sessions. In the field, however, while they remain a possibility, they could be an encumbrance. This depends on the temperature, how many layers you might be wearing, etc. Hiking around the mountains wearing one of these is not my first inclination.
Not long ago I had some great discussions with Lifetime Athlete community member Marc Miller, who is working on his own post-surgical shoulder project. Marc shared with me an outstanding article recently published in GUNS Magazine by Holt Bodinson entitled “Shooting with a Busted Shoulder.” The article was very well-written and offered some brilliant perspectives. I was pleased to know that I (we) are not alone in this journey. Holt did many of the things we’ve been talking about in this series, including re-tooling his arsenal to be more shoulder-friendly. Mr. Bodinson described how he did a lot of BB and pellet gun shooting, as well as dry-firing, to regain his edge. He also mentioned mercury recoil reducers which can be inserted into the butt of some rifles. They provide a “sloshing cylinder” that affects inertia and contributes to felt recoil reduction. I have one of those, but it’s in my parts inventory as opposed to active service at this time.
My major focus several years ago was building one rifle that would fit most of my needs for big game hunting, particularly elk hunting in mountainous terrain. As I worked on that project, I pared down my rifle collection in a fashion not too dissimilar to what Mr. Bodinson described. A few rimfires and smaller caliber centerfires remained, but the beloved big magnums went away. Buy-trade-sell is the way of the firearms enthusiast and thus I was able to fund my entire project without additional cash outlay. That wasn’t an imperative but it was nice. The 6.5 PRC represented the most power (and desired ballistics) I could shoot in a package that I could bring down to that approximate .243 level of recoil, and that’s what I’d talked about in Part 1.
The 6.5 PRC shooting system sports a carbon fiber stock, titanium action, 22” carbon wrapped barrel, 7” suppressor, and a Nightforce scope in Talley mounts. It’s a great rifle. Carries and shoots extremely well and allows me to get out and hunt without feeling significantly undergunned. I’m using a handload with 127-grain Barnes LRX bullets which consistently delivers around 2940 f.p.s.
When running copper, or monometal bullets, I like a muzzle velocity near 3,000 f.p.s. and an effective range limit of where that speed hits 2,000 f.p.s. This is essential for proper bullet performance because the copper bullets, while being superior penetrators, are harder and need that impact velocity to mushroom or open up into petals. In my rifle, this provides the velocity and energy to theoretically shoot at a broadside elk, in perfect conditions, out to 500 yards. However, I’ve decided to limit shots on bull elk with this rifle to 400 yards or less. In most cases, my shot opportunities tend to be half that distance anyway. I could push this effective range out a bit more on deer or antelope if necessary, probably using the Hornady ELD-X factory load or one of my Berger VLDH handloads. I’ve shot steel out to 800 yards so far, using a different load, and the rifle has performed extremely well.
I’m also using two similar setups with a couple rifles I hung onto for various reasons. One is a factory Remington 700 chambered in .270 Winchester to which I’d done a number of upgrades over the years. Energy-wise, it’s very similar to the 6.5 PRC but it doesn’t quite offer the longer range performance. It’s a great backup rifle nonetheless. The other is an HS Precision in 6.5-284 Norma that will almost equal the 6.5 PRC with the right handloads. I’ve got that one set up as a deer and antelope rig although switching loads would be no big deal. I’m a gear geek and I like tinkering so we’ll see what the future holds whether these get sold or not.
All of the aforementioned rifles come in at similar recoil levels, and they represent my reasonable upper limit. The way they are set up, I don’t really feel anything when I touch them off and I can shoot a dozen or so 3-shot groups at the range if I want to. The breaks taken for barrel cooling also provide for shoulder recovery.
But there is one rifle that remains which doesn’t quite fit the theme of this article. It’s my one, true, remaining safe queen and I’m not sure I could ever part with it. The Winchester High Wall. This was American genius John Moses Browning’s first patented rifle. He designed it in 1878, patented it in 1879, and it was produced by Winchester beginning in 1885. I have found it to be the most sleek and well-balanced of the falling-block single shots. Mine is a modern version chambered in 30-06 Springfield and it sports nice walnut and a beautiful 28” octagonal barrel. It is a delight to shoot from field positions, particularly kneeling, offhand, or using shooting sticks, and I’ve used it to take a few animals over the years.
Historically I never thought of the 30-06 as being a really hard kicker. But things changed of course. I wanted to explore how I could still use this rifle on occasion without jeopardizing my shoulder. It’s a pretty accurate gun, yielding around 1-1.5 MOA with a variety of factory ammo and handloads. Actually a little better with a couple. That 28-inch barrel gives it a slight bump in velocity, making it sort of a “30-06 +P” or almost a “300 WinMagLite.” I used to grab that rifle and relish shooting it. Recently I took it out to the range and found myself feeling a little trepidation as I set it in the racks and got ready. Being sensible, I put it in the BenchMaster rest with a sandbag (like a Lead Sled), and fired a few 180-grain Accubond handloads for accuracy testing. It still was a great shooter. I’ve never taken that gun out anywhere that someone didn’t admire and complement it. Thanks John Browning.
I would never consider cutting or threading that beautiful octagonal barrel, so a brake or suppressor was out of the question. I really didn’t want to do any modification to the rifle at all. The only thing I did was put on a lace up leather butt pad, which was somewhat period-specific and quite good-looking in my opinion. Then I snapped on my PAST shooting pad. Next, I switched loads to a 165-grain Hornady Interbond with a moderate load (per the Hornady manual) of H4350. My initial goal in loading those up was to have a slightly lighter bullet (than 180 grains) at roughly 2650 to 2700 f.p.s.
I took a staggered stance and thoughtfully shouldered the rifle offhand. I was less concerned about accuracy but wanted to be in a position that would allow me to rock back with the recoil. Several things happened. First, I chickened out and instead of placing the rifle against my right shoulder, I put it on the left side. I just had some instinct that told me to do that. I fired several rounds and noted that the recoil was just a touch more than what I had been shooting, but this was on my “not so sensitive” side. I was also reminded why I never pursued shooting on the left side secondary to a vision issue I have. Left shoulder/left eye did not work so well. I even fired a shot using my left shoulder/right eye but this was incredibly awkward for my no longer youthful neck.
Back to the right side and right eye. I let the barrel cool and went to the gear tote I always bring to the range. In there was a small square of closed-cell foam padding which occasionally used to come in handy during long bench sessions. I slid that under my PAST shoulder pad. Now I had a heavy hooded sweatshirt, the foam square, and the recoil pad protecting my delicate shoulder. It was a definite gobstopper and projected out about 2 inches. When shouldering the High Wall in standing, I needed to push it out and then bring it back in an arc because the padding obstructed just pulling the rifle up into my shoulder. Note to self.
I carefully, and with great concentration, fired the first shot on my right side. The gun pushed me back a bit, but with all that padding, I didn’t hardly feel any recoil. But the arrangement was definitely kind of wonky. I shot a few more times and finished up.
I considered where all this might go. I could get a shooting vest with a shoulder insert and use an elastomeric pad. In all probability, that would work. It might even reduce some of the bulk of my impromptu range padding setup. Or, I could switch to a 150-grain bullet, further downgrade the load, and drop recoil energy a bit more. The thing is, though, I’m not crazy about the ballistics that would yield.
I’m not sure where I’ll end up on this one. Aging and learning does not always present easily accepted scenarios. The practical side of me suggests that I should just sell the High Wall and move on. And maybe that’s precisely what I’ll do. But the other side of me clings to nostalgia and tradition and trying to make things work. I do know that I won’t do anything foolish with this shoulder because the repercussions could be serious. I could damage it in a way that a revision surgery would not be possible (and I’m not looking for a revision surgery anyway). It’s not worth it to jeopardize where I’m at right now. The moral of this part of the story is that you can fairly easily turn a 6.5 PRC into a .243 (recoil-wise). Especially if you use a muzzle treatment. But you can’t really turn a 30-06 into a .243 unless you are willing to use a brake. You can insert other calibers into that equation depending on your unique needs and interests.
What’s next for me? Well, I’ve been watching the evolution of the chassis rifle for quite some time. Setting up a rifle with a folding stock and 18-20” barrel is on my radar. Very suppressor-friendly. Probably in one flavor or another of a 6 or 6.5mm caliber. This rifle could be a pound heavier than my current setup but the compactness for backpack carry would offset that. I’d love to consider a 7mm PRC but, based on all the information in this article, I might not be able to hit the recoil reduction target. If I sell the High Wall, that might be next on my radar.
Summing up this journey, I’ll bullet out some advice to my shooting colleagues.
- Shoulder injuries, surgeries, reconstructions, and replacements pose a challenge for the shooter. However, there is almost always a way to continue shooting if it is approached with a blend of intelligence and patience.
- There are numerous ways to mitigate felt recoil. You will need to experiment and find the combination of elements which yields your most desirable result.
- Rifle, cartridge, powder, and bullet technology has improved substantially over the past two decades and this continues at an impressive rate. Higher levels of effective lethality are now being accomplished with lighter (and thus softer kicking) calibers than ever thought possible.
- There are many options for the dedicated shooter to pursue in order to remain in this sport for a lifetime.
- Long term health (both systemic and orthopedic) must, and can be, preserved as the evolving human navigates the journey of life.
Thank you so much for joining me. I sincerely hope you found this information useful. Don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments.