truckemup97
Member
Anyone have any real-world experience with this stuff? Reduced recoil seems like it would involve reduced impact at the other end, so I'm a little skeptical...
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
Remington reduced recoil rifle ammo?
- Thread starter truckemup97
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
I tried some of them in my .270. They didn't shoot as well as the standard (heavier) 130gr loads, so I stopped using them.
By the numbers, they have about 2/3 the power of a full load, (comparing 115gr to 130gr .270s) and will lose their effectiveness a fair bit sooner. (Under 1000ft-lb at 300yd instead of 500yd.)
If the lesser recoil is important and you're willing to accept the range limitations, they do work.
By the numbers, they have about 2/3 the power of a full load, (comparing 115gr to 130gr .270s) and will lose their effectiveness a fair bit sooner. (Under 1000ft-lb at 300yd instead of 500yd.)
If the lesser recoil is important and you're willing to accept the range limitations, they do work.
Maximumbob54
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 7,200
- Reaction score
- 1,927
It depends on your intended use. I used it with my cousin when she was still sensitive from surgery. In .270 win form they still took her deer when fired from a Browning BAR and it still cycled just fine. We had to sight it in as it did drop some. Not sure if it is really the same thing though as it was a managed recoil load from Federal. I assume the same deal but don’t know. I do know the .30-06 Rem Accelerator was junk for any accuracy beyond about 100 yards. It had less recoil and fired the equivalent of a .223 bullet. I think she gave the rest of that stuff away.
I've handloaded the equivalent in .270 and if you are hunting deer sized game, under 200 yd, and hit what you shoot at, you will never know the difference on the game, just on your shoulder. Let's face it, I use full-power .270 Noslers on elk, and you just don't need all that for deer.
If you're trying to get a beginner to practice, the reduced loads are much less intimidating.
If you're trying to get a beginner to practice, the reduced loads are much less intimidating.
I have shot whitetail deer and wild hogs with Remington Reduced Recoil ammo in .30-'06 with 125 grain bullets. The animals were killed at around 100 yards with one shot kills. I switched to the reduced recoil ammo due to a shoulder injury. The ammo is designed for shots out to 200 yards and work just fine in MHO. As in any hunting situation bullet placement is critical, the reduced recoil ammo will get the job done as long as you do your part. If most of your hunting situations occur at 200 yards or less, you should have no problem with them. Give them a try... good luck.
straightshooter1
US Veteran
I had two boxes of the 30'06. At the range, from the bench, I got horrible groups at 100 yards. The groups were very inconsistent. The rifle I used was capable of sub-one inch groups and these were five to six inches.
Thinking it was possible, though unlikely, that I was having a really bad shooting day
, I gave the second box to an older man (WW2 Marine armorer) and asked him to try them in his rifle. He shot 10 rounds, two five shot groups, and gave them back. He didn't even want the brass. His groups mirrored mine. I shot the last ten with the same horrible results.
I have no idea why they shot so badly, but we ended up leaving the now once-fired 40 rounds of brass behind when we left. I doubt the brass had anything to do with the results, but why take a chance?
The only good thing about that ammo was that it had been given to me by an FFL so I had no money in the stuff.
I was so surprised by the performance that I took the same rifle out the next week to make sure nothing was wrong with it.
The rifle, with other ammo, shot its usual good groups.
But, the felt recoil with this ammo was, indeed, less.
I can load reduced loads, & get less recoil with the same level of accuracy my rifle is capable of, so I would not spend my money on Remington's Reduced Recoil ammo.
YMMV of course.
Bob
Thinking it was possible, though unlikely, that I was having a really bad shooting day
, I gave the second box to an older man (WW2 Marine armorer) and asked him to try them in his rifle. He shot 10 rounds, two five shot groups, and gave them back. He didn't even want the brass. His groups mirrored mine. I shot the last ten with the same horrible results.I have no idea why they shot so badly, but we ended up leaving the now once-fired 40 rounds of brass behind when we left. I doubt the brass had anything to do with the results, but why take a chance?
The only good thing about that ammo was that it had been given to me by an FFL so I had no money in the stuff.
I was so surprised by the performance that I took the same rifle out the next week to make sure nothing was wrong with it.
The rifle, with other ammo, shot its usual good groups.
But, the felt recoil with this ammo was, indeed, less.
I can load reduced loads, & get less recoil with the same level of accuracy my rifle is capable of, so I would not spend my money on Remington's Reduced Recoil ammo.
YMMV of course.
Bob
35Rem
Member
My friend's son used my Savage 270 with the Remington stuff to great effect on his first whitetail doe. Shot plenty good, but that rifle seems to like everything.
It turns a 270 into a 257 roberts, ballistically.
Not sure what you are shooting, but the "bob" is no slouch for deer.
It turns a 270 into a 257 roberts, ballistically.
Not sure what you are shooting, but the "bob" is no slouch for deer.
Texas Star
US Veteran
Excellent subject; good posts! Keep 'em coming.
I've shot a box in .270, but just at cans and targets. The recoil is definitely less.
My concern was that cumlative recoil might cause a detached retina. My opthalomologist says that he has never seen such a case or heard of one, but two gun writers had it happen. However, they shot a LOT, often with really hard recoiling loads.
T-Star
I've shot a box in .270, but just at cans and targets. The recoil is definitely less.
My concern was that cumlative recoil might cause a detached retina. My opthalomologist says that he has never seen such a case or heard of one, but two gun writers had it happen. However, they shot a LOT, often with really hard recoiling loads.
T-Star
I've never shot any factory reduced loads, but have handloaded a lot over the years.
The overall poor accuracy some are experiencing is more than likely due to the velocity not matching the bullet weight to rate of twist ratio. You also get better accuracy with a full case of powder so it's better to switch to something else when looking for softer recoil than just using a lighter charge of what you used for max. loads. If that's the case.
The overall poor accuracy some are experiencing is more than likely due to the velocity not matching the bullet weight to rate of twist ratio. You also get better accuracy with a full case of powder so it's better to switch to something else when looking for softer recoil than just using a lighter charge of what you used for max. loads. If that's the case.
