The most hard kicking revolver?

[G-30]

My vote would go Ruger Alaskan in .454 with max loads, but I have not shot a S&W .500.

 

[Walker45]

I also have to say the 13.3 ounce M&P340, with .357 Magnum loads are some of the most uncomfortable rounds I have ever shot.

But worth every penny...

 

[cubguy]

My vote would go Ruger Alaskan in .454 with max loads, but I have not shot a S&W .500.

I have to agree with this!

 

[dla]

I also have to say the 13.3 ounce M&P340, with .357 Magnum loads are some of the most uncomfortable rounds I have ever shot.

But worth every penny...

My guess is the the M&P340 comes in 1st place and the 329pd a close 2nd. But it might be the other way around.

 

[Steve_NEPhila]

You might want to check that out with someone who actually knows some high-school physics. You are using power and energy interchangeably, when neither is the relevant factor. The property you are looking for is momentum (mass times velocity). Further, the mass of the weapon is NOT a minor factor, as many, many people on this board know from experience. Some of them even know where to put it in a formula for recoil, but I don't. You can probably also find recoil-calculating programs on the net.

Condescend much?

I am not sure where your reading comprehension broke down, most likely it was somewhere along the way when you thought you were right about everything and everyone else was wrong. It is fine though, I forgive you (most likely your former wives do not) for your shortcomings. Please note that above I defined "energy" in my post. Foot pounds is indeed a measure of energy, which was used correctly.

Energy:
In physics, energy (Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια energeia "activity, operation"[1]) is an indirectly observed quantity. It is often understood as the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems.[2][3] Since work is defined as a force acting through a distance (a length of space), energy is always equivalent to the ability to exert pulls or pushes against the basic forces of nature, along a path of a certain length.

Citation: Wikipedia

Yup, in my second paragraph I used the wrong term. It should have been energy and not power.

Again, I shall restate my theory. The greater energy (muzzle energy if you will, measured in foot pounds for us Imperials) the greater the recoil, with all things being equal.

 

[S&W-Keeper]

I bet a 329 with full power hunting loads comes close

I agree, and feel your pain.

 

[Stainz]

The worst.... a 340 with hot CorBon .357M's. No mass - and nothing to hold on to - big slap - bigger ouch!

Pain? You want pain - especially if you have CTS/wrist problems... A DEII and .50AE. It's not the recoil - it's the jerking twist at the end of the recoil. A Magnum Research .45-70 BFR is tough - on the forearms - to hold up! Recoil is not bad. I owned a .454 SRH for years - shot hundreds of Hornady XTPs 240gr 2k fps loads - the grips worked. Don't shoot from a bench - with your palm barely off the table and under the grip - believe me. Even if the purveyor says you can, don't shoot it at an indoor range. The Alaskan scared little Stainz - maybe a teeny tad more recoil - some muzzle rise - but the fireball it launched really scared little Stainz (It looked like something off Startrek.). A very heavy early 8+" .500 S&W Magnum was a big push - and very loud. Near dusk, it was 'illuminating'.

Yeah, the little .357 hammerless in expensivium - with a teeny boot grip - was the most miserable - ouch!!

Stainz

PS Nowadays I'm a wimp... discovered .38's and .22's...

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Again, I shall restate my theory. The greater energy (muzzle energy if you will, measured in foot pounds for us Imperials) the greater the recoil, with all things being equal.

Nope. Momentum, not energy. Take two loads, where one has more momentum than the other, and the other has more energy than the first, and the first will produce greater recoil.

BTW, all things being equal, energy is equal, and so is recoil. But I don't think we're really discussing that case.

 

[elundgren]

My Ruger Redhawk with the factory grips is more unpleasant to shoot with factory 240gr than my 340sc with 125gr Cor-Bon .357's. Hougs help the Ruger a bit but I would rather shoot my 629MG. Even though it weighs 10ozs less than the Ruger it is much easier to shoot. I think it is because the round butt frame on the 629 makes the grip a bit small around and I can get a much better hold on it. Some day I will look for smaller grips for the Ruger. Oh, by the way, a 340 with those composite wood grips might make #1 position for this poll. I think with a full house load you could break bones in your hand.

 

[mgb223]

I have the 460 and tc with 45/70 "10 bbl 45/70 tops all!!!!

 

[KEN L]

Don't know from personal experience, but my vote would go with the 329PD with the factory wood grips shooting Norma .44 mag 240 grain jacketed hollow points. My hand hurts just thinking about it!

 

[scooter123]

I will say this, nothing beats a cylinder full of full house .357 loads in a M&P340. Wow.

IMO we may have a winner here. While the 357 Magnum may only generate about 600 ft.lbs. out of a barrel this short, the 340PD only weighs in at 11.4 ounces. When you consider the mass/energy relationships the result is nearly identical to that of the 4 inch 500 Magnum firing the most powerful loads on the market. Add in the fact that the standard grip on the 340PD is just tiny and you have a gun that will be a beast to shoot.

Personally, I have absolutely zero interest in shooting either, I'm at the point in life where seeing how close I can come to doing myself permanent injury no longer has any apeal at all.

 

[gr7070]

energy (i.e. foot pounds, newtons or kilogram meters)

Not to pile on, but a kg-m is not a unit of energy. It's very different from a ft-lb, even though the units appear the same. A pound is a unit of weight where a kg is unit of mass.

You really want a newton-meter or more correctly a joule.

Not that it matters much, and the mass/weight thing is a common misunderstanding anyway.

Lastly, a newton is a unit of force not energy.

 

[nutsforsmiths]

I have the 460 and tc with 45/70 "10 bbl 45/70 tops all!!!!

+1 on the T/C in 45/70. That is the worst recoil pistol I have ever shot. I too have a 460 and actually like it. I have shot the 460 and 500 with the 4" barrel lengths, and the T/C still has a lot more recoil then either of those.

I wonder how the recoil is in those S&W Survival pistols with the 2" barrel that were made for a couple of years in 460 and 500. I don't think those would be all day shooters at the range.

 

[xrmattaz]

Years ago, I was privy to fire ONE round from a 6" .45/70 derringer (American Derringer?).....that was one too many.

I shoot my 329PD a bunch, but 99.99% of the time with my own spicy .44 Special reloads. A cylinder full of hot .44 Magnum hunting load is fine once in a blue moon, which thankfully doesn't occur very often.

And yes, I prefer the stock Ahrends wood grips, with the exposed backstrap. The rubber grips I've tried draw blood on the web of my hand, as (for me) they don't allow the revolver to "roll" into my hand, but grab the skin and tear.

Finest .44 Special carry revolver ever made, though!

(I don't disagree with the uber-lightweight .357 magnum revolvers, though....I don't want to shoot one of those little gems!)

 

[dla]

Just ran a recoil calculator. 240gr@1200fps out of a 2lb gun versus 158gr@1000fps out of a 12oz gun. The recoil velocity is about 50% higher for the 340 over the 329pd. The free recoil energy is a bit higher for the 329pd.

Of course I know the real weight of a 329pd because I've weighed one loaded with 240gr'rs. But I don't know the loaded weight of a 340.

Point is that the 340 is going to bite your hand more than any other revolver. I seriously doubt any of the 5lb revolvers are going to come close.

 

[DCWilson]

At the level of theory, I have to side with the magnum-loads-in-scandium-frames group. I haven't shot these and don't intend to. My hands don't even like Cor-Bon .44 Specials in a stock 296. Shooting that thing before I heavied it up with a steel cylinder was worse than the 4-inch .500 with light to moderate loads. (I can't imagine shooting one of those 700-gr Bear Pulverizer loads through my .500; I would hesitate to fire one even in a longer barrel! I guess I won't be going where the bears are.)

 

[MTKTM]

Back in the late 1960s I was a college student and the Thompson Center Contender had just come out. A friend of mine acquired one with a 44 Mag. barrel. I went out with him one day and shot the thing. Brutal. I think it was mostly the design of the grip, it really hurt the web of the shooting hand and I recall that my hand was sore for about 2 weeks after that session.....and I was a young tough-guy! Thus, I cannot imagine shooting a TC with a 45/70. Maybe they've modified the grip design in the past 40 years, that I do not know as I have not touched one of the things since then!!

I also agree with the comments on the 340s and 329s. I own a 340PD and it's brutal with full-house 357 loads. My brother-in-law had a 329 for a while.....he sold it after a few sessions, and not to me! That gun was very uncomfortable with full loads.

The 500 is much more pleasant to shoot than any of the aforementioned in my humble opinion. I shoot the 500 a lot, have an early 8 3/8" gun and a 4", and both are quite shootable.

 

[BenR]

The Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan in .454 Casull pushes a good bit, but it's not uncontrollable. It'll leave the web of your hand sore for a few days.

 

[senecaap]

The Scandium J Frame with full power .357s. Doesn't even live in the same state as pleasant.