I got the sights installed on the .50 Alaskan, and I just couldn't wait to take a couple of shots. I justified it by telling myself that it would be "preliminary data" for the sight regulation. So I set things up out back and touched one off. Oy!
 
Hmmm... Loads are set for 1800 f/s and about 3630 ft-lbs at the muzzle. Shouldn't be a problem.
 
Touched another off... and picked my glasses up off the ground. Oy VEY!:stars:
 
Grabbed hold good and tight, and let another fly. With a tight grip, I was back to simply Oy!:huh2:
 
Enough o' that. I better go back and do some more cypherin', 'cause this most definitely isn't a "shoot all day" setup.
 
First thing I did was weigh the rifle. Now that the sights are on, it's at it's full "fightin' weight". It was 8 pounds and no ounces. Next, I fired up QuickLoad and checked all my numbers. Then I checked the numbers for the .338 Win Mag. With my handloads, the .338 was producing about 3200 ft-lbs at the muzzle of a 9.5 pound rifle. The .50 was producing something like 3600 ft-lbs of ME, and that in an 8 pound rifle. So... wasn't quite apples-to-apples.
 
I loaded QL's recoil calculator. Mostly mumbo jumbo. The numbers weren't very illucudating since they weren't in a standard form. I really didn't have a "yardstick" with which to compare the 50's numbers. So, I put the .338's numbers in ht ecalculator. Whoa! Big difference in favor of the .338. Since most consider the '06 a reasonable standard by which long arms can be compared, I'll list an '06s numbers here so you can compare for yourself. It's for a 180-grain bullet doing 2900 f/s.
 
..................................................... 9.5# '06 ........... 8# '06 ........ 8# 50....... % increase
Initial Figures as Bullet Exits Muzzle
Momentum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.76 ft-lbs/s . . . . . 87.76 . . . . 141.77 . . . . 61%
Velocity of rifle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.23 f/s . . . . . . . . . 10.96 . . . . . 17.71 . . . 92%
Distance traveled . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.077" . . . . . . . . . . 0.091 . . . . . 0.239 . . . . 210%
Energy of recoiling mass . . . . . . . 12.59 ft-lbs . . . . . . 14.95 . . . . . . 39.03 . . . 210%
 
Free Recoiling Mass After Gas Effect
Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.14 ms . . . . . . . . . 2.14 . . . . . 2.46 . . . . . 15%
Velocity of gun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.65 f/s . . . . . . . . . 13.83 . . . . 21.09 . . . . 88%
Distance traveld . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.358" . . . . . . . . . . . 0.425 . . . . 0.762 . . . . 113%
Energy of recoiling mass . . . . . . . 20.05 ft-lbs . . . . . . . 23.80 . . . . 55.33 . . . . 170%
 
Qumulative Numbers
Muzzle gas force . . . . . . . . . . . . . 667 ft-lbs . . . . . . . . 667 . . . . . . 684 . . . . . 3%
Peak force of recoil . . . . . . . . . . . 4283 ft-lbs . . . . . . . 4282 . . . . . 5189 . . . . 21%
Momentum after effect . . . . . . . . . 22.96 ft-lbs/s . . . . . 22.96 . . . . 27.03 . . . . 18%
Momentum total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110.72 ft-lbs/s . . . . 110.72 . . . 168.80 . . . 52%
 
Seems clear to me that the 8 pound weight of this rifle will have to be increased, or the muzzle velocity of the bullet will have to be lowered. I could of course lower the bullet weight too, but I don't want to in this circumstance. I can increase the rifle's weight by adding lead to the butt. However, that will mess with the balance if something isn't added forward of the action. I'll have to add some weight to the forearm too.
 
Recall that the weight of the original .22/.30-30 was 11.5 lbs, and it was only shooting a 45-grain bullet. The stock of the .50 is considerably smaller, the walnut is significantly less dense than the maple, and the .510 groove diameter of the .50 Alaskan required considerable steel to be removed from the formerly .224 groove diameter barrel.
 
I'm also rethinking the skeltonized butt-plate vs the recoil pad currently installed.
 
This is exactly what I try to get across to people when I mention how significant rifle weight is to felt recoil. And believe me, I was feeling this recoil.
 
Paul

I believe I felt that all the way down here in the Peachtree State.

Interesting Paul...
 
I think you and I both had some recoiling issues.  I was patterning my predator shotgun this past week and bought some 3 1/2" #4 Buck loads.  The recoil was so substantial it liuterally knocked my jammed in ear plugs out of my ears!
 
Thank goodness none of the 4 chokes I had patterned the 3 1/2 loads worth a darn.
 
Do you know specifically what exactly you are going to do to increase the weight?  Aftermarket stuff, denser wood, etc.?

I tell you whut RBH, I certainly felt it way up here.
 
I can tolerate this recoil, but it takes the fun out of shooting. And it was fun before. I did get a bit of the fun back though when I tried to recover the bullet from the backstop. The berm is made of mostly sand and silt pushed up when I built my house. I noticed the hole the bullet made, and decided to dig the bullet out. I stuck my arm into the hole all the way up to my elbow before the "tunnel" stopped! After digging around a little with my fingers, I gave up 'cause I wanted to get inside and figure out why this thing was kicking like a mule. I'll get back out there and dig that bullet out tomorrow.
 
It appears that I'd have to increase the rifle's weight to 9.5 lbs AND drop the velocity to 1650-ish to get the recoil on par with an 9.5 lbs '06 pushin' a 180-grain bullet 2900 f/s. I'm recalling now that the 1650 f/s MV WAS the "fun" velocity in the .45-70 with a 500-grain bullet. I want to shoot a bison with this rifle, so I was upping the velocity to 1800 f/s in order to get the trajectory such that I would NOT have to aim "off hair" at a bison at 300 yds. Even with the added weight, it looks like if I'm gonna have fun with this rifle, I'll have a "fun" load, and a bison load.
 
This also has be thinking about the 3800-ish ft-lbs of ME I'm planning in the loads for the .376 Steyr.
 
Paul
 
PS - If an Administrator/Moderator can correct the spelling of "enough" in the title of this thread, I'd appreciate it. Apparently a thread's author can't edit the title.

Paul, now you know what it's like to shoot the 500 S&W in a 7 pound three ounce rifle. It was simply too much for me. After the fifth or sixth shot it was brutal. I cannot take this kind of recoil any more. I don't need to. I simply don't need that kind of power anyway. It was the same with the 45/120/3.25 too. I got rid of the 500S&W and took the barrel out of the 45/120 and replaced it with a 45/70.  ...........Paul H

Well, I called "Bob The Bullet Man" and explained the issues, and he is changing my order to 50 flat-based 400-grainers, but I'm keeping the order for the 50 rebated boat-tailed 500-grainers. They have a BC of .527, and I may use them for the "Buffalo Load". At a MV of 1800 f/s they're only 17" low at 300 yds when sighted in for a 12" target, and still carrying 2500 ft-lbs of energy. Theoretical MPBR would be 245 yds.
 
The 400-grainers at 1850 f/s will have a BC of about .290. I'll launch them at 1850 f/s, and they should be 23" low at 300 yds, and carrying about 1500 ft-lbs of energy. Again sighted in for a 12" target. Theoretical MPBR would be 235 yds. (Theoretical chamber pressure on this load is only 19,000 PSI using Accurate 2495.)
 
Paul

Excellent post on real vs. calculated recoil!  That was exactly what I was curious about with the QL program in regard to bigger bores/bullets.

I'd like to hear more how this relates to your projections on the 376 Steyr.

Nels

Paul, you're such a wimp. Bring that sucker down here and we'll have a go at killing rocks on the hillside again. Maybe even let HB tangle with it.

Are you using different loads than when you were here last fall? I didn't think those were to bad.

As for getting your glassed knocked off, maybe you'd better get  a stampede string for them.

As for the spelling, I thought you spelled it ----  E-N-U-F-F

Are you going to add weight to it? If so would you put it in the butt stock?

Better post another picture of it so I can drool on my keyboard somemore.

RJ

Hi All,

   Sorry Gitano but that did make me laugh  in my mind I could just see it all .

    Now as for added weight, on the P-H1100M that I have which is in .458 Win Mag the put two cylinders of lead in the butt and hollowed out the fore end and added weight under some bedding compound to hold it in place to keep the balance. If memory serves me correctly that rifle weighs 10 1/2lbs sans scope and rings and with the Weaver K1.5 in alloy weaver type mounts around 11lbs.

   I suppose that you could try a Mercury recoil reducer,and, or a Muzzle brake even though I know you don't like them much. You could always do like BSA did and have a range adaptor to go over it and shut it off when it's not wanted :D .

GMONEY and Paul_H - It appears I was composing while you were posting.
 
GMONEY - No intent to change the wood at all, as I really like the stock the way it is. Most likely I'll be adding a lead billet to the existing hole in the butt, and a strip of lead under the barrel in the forearm both for balance and for weight. Other alternatives are reduce the MV or reduce the bullet weight. I may do both. See my post above regarding my conversation with Bob The Bullet Man.
 
Paul_H - My 45-70 Gov't is on an 1873 H&R Buffalo Classic which I think weighs about 8 lbs. I keep the 500 grain bullets to a MV of no more than 1650 f/s, and the 405s to about 1850 f/s. Those are very "user-friendly" loads.
 
Nels - The QL calculations weren't too far off, it was more "operator error" than anything. First, I forgot that my .45-70 loads for 500-grain bullets produced a MV of 1650, not 1800. Second, I forgot to consider the significant reduction in weight of the .51 caliber barrel relative to the .224 barrel, and the reduction of the weight of the stock. Going from 11.5 pounds to 8.0 is a big deal, as is of course a 500-grain bullet at 1650 f/s vs 1800 f/s. This is most certainly making me look closely at the loads I have been considering for the .376 Steyr, and thestock and over-all weight too. I'll keep everyone posted.
 
RJ - "Paul, you're such a wimp." Pretty much what I expected from a guy with the nickname Recoil Junky. :D
 
These were a different load. Those 500's we shot when I was at your place were loaded to a MV of about 1650 f/s. These new ones were pumped up to 1800 f/s.
 
I do intend to add weight to the butt, and to the forearm. I'm not sure how much that's going to help, but it will certainly help a little. If it doesn't help much, AND throws the balance off too much, I'll take it out.
 
I haven't yet got a picture of the rifle with sights permanently attached. When I get one, I'll post it.
 
BH - I don't happpen to think the mercury recoil reducers are any more effective than lead of equal weight. They are a bit more convenient to use though. As for muzzle brakes... Ain't gonna happen in any configuration on this rifle. I might stomach one in a "modern" gun, but this rifle's design, from the outset, was to remain consistent with something one might find at the end of the 19th century. I might consider a brake on the .376 Steyr if I find myself seriously compromising, but I'm pretty sure that won't be the case.
 
To All - I think reducing the 500-grainers to a MV of 1650 f/s and using 400-grainers for the 1900 f/s loads will mitigate most of the recoil "issues". Trajectories for the 500-grain rebated boat-tail (BC = .527) at 1650, and the 400-grain flat-base (BC = .290) at 1800 are almost identical out to 300. The big difference is delivered energy. The 500 wins hands down at all but the shortest ranges, but the 400 does carry 1750 ft-lbs out to 250 yds. That makes it, (the 400-grainer), an elk-thumper out to 250 yds at least. The 500 (at 1650 fps MV), carries 2000 ft-lbs out to 300 yds.
 
Paul