Raging Bull .44mag recoil vs a G20 (10mm?).

Discussion in 'General Handgun Discussion' started by Lindenwood, Feb 10, 2011.

  1. Lindenwood

    Lindenwood New Member

    659
    0
    0
    I have been really wanting to pick up a .44mag Raging Bull, in the 8" barrel length. However, I want to make sure the recoi won't cause me to develop a flinch. The most unpleasant gun I've ever shot was actually my KelTec PF9, even with basic ammo. It isn't terrible, but I usually can only shoot 2 or 3 mags in succession without starting to flinch (at which point I just put a few through my other guns and go back to it). It is just very snappy, like slapping a baseball bat into your palm. I have shot a G20 with 180gr handloads coming out at 1400fps, and it actually wasn't as bad as my PF9. The same guy also had reportedly hotter handloads out of some 4" S&W.41mag revolver, but I don't remember their specifics and it didn't seem any worse than the pistol (probably offset by the heavier firearm). In any case, I shot those guns better than their owner did.

    I have read all over that the heavier weight and ported barrel of the longer Raging Bulls really tame the recoil of even hotter .44mag loads, turning it into more of a "shove" than a "snap." But, I am just curious how the standard loads of 240gr@1400fps from a 4+lb Bull would compare to those hot 10mm and .41mag loads from those obviously smaller guns?
    Do you guys think I'd have a problem with these .44 loads?

    *edit*

    And I wanted to say I was just figuring the 10mm loads could make for a decent comparison because they come out with 75% the momentum (180gr vs 240gr at the same velocity), but from a pistol with half the barrel length (i.e. a stouter charge to get the bullet out that fast), without muzzle compensation, and about 55% the weight of the Bull in question. Those recoil calculators on the web say both setups would produce the same amount of recoil energy, though the G20 would have a higher recoil velocity over a shorter time which would logicaly be interpreted as having a "snappier" recoil rather than the oft-described "push" of the Bulls. Is this assessment accurate?
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2011
  2. skullcrusher

    skullcrusher New Member

    10,888
    1
    0
    I don't know about your loads, but you are talking apples to oranges. A large bore revolver with a long barrel vs. a semi-auto shorter barrel in a smaller load.

    I've shot the Raging Bull in .454 Casull with the 8-3/8" barrel and I can tell you that it does not hurt to shoot. It does make the ground shake, but not flinching.

    Smaller, lighter guns will give you the recoil that makes one flinch if it hurts to shoot. The Raging Bull with the 8-3/8" barrel in .44 mag should (imo) produce less felt recoil over a 10mm poly. It is a different kind of recoil that you should notice right away.
     

  3. Lindenwood

    Lindenwood New Member

    659
    0
    0
    Yeah, I know it is not really a direct comparison. I guess I'm trying to ask something more like, "if hot 10mm loads from a medium-sized pistol don't hurt, will those .44mag loads from a big Bull feel much worse?" But, your example is a good start!

    Thanks!

    Anyone else have experience with these two firearms (or similar, of course) that could describe the recoil?
     
  4. michigan0626

    michigan0626 New Member

    763
    0
    0
  5. michigan0626

    michigan0626 New Member

    763
    0
    0
    Raging Bull in 454 with 8-3/8" recoil factor- 35.0 lbs
    genitron.com
     
  6. Lindenwood

    Lindenwood New Member

    659
    0
    0
    Using the handloads.com recoil calculatorand the above loads, and using a 2.35lb G20 and a 4.1lb Bull, they both end up with around 12-13lbs of recoil energy with the Glock doing it with a significantly higher velocity over the.44 bull. I just wanted to see if anyone had personal experience to validate how id expect the recoil to feel, ya know?
     
  7. dallascj

    dallascj New Member

    93
    0
    0