question for military folk and rifle enthusiasts

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm kinda wondering.. what sort of recoil for a gun might be needed to actually injure someone's shoulder? Does experience matter (could someone not familiar with a weapon injure themselves worse than someone who knows what they're doing?)

I recall hearing that the old "volley guns" like the 7 barreled Nock gun could break a shoulder. Would something like a .50 BMG rifle (like the Barrett) be able to as well? If not, is there a rifle that could (and how powerful is it)

[Aaron]

I'm kinda wondering.. what sort of recoil for a gun might be needed to actually injure someone's shoulder? Does experience matter (could someone not familiar with a weapon injure themselves worse than someone who knows what they're doing?)

I recall hearing that the old "volley guns" like the 7 barreled Nock gun could break a shoulder. Would something like a .50 BMG rifle (like the Barrett) be able to as well? If not, is there a rifle that could (and how powerful is it)

The Barrett has a compensator and a butt pad to help reduce the recoil shock. But I doubt it would break your shoulder without them. It would undoutably be really unpleasent though. Some 3" magnum shotgun rounds will bruise your shoulder up really good. Probably something like that, might bruise the bone.

The Nock Volley Gun IIRC was very over powered for it's intended purpose, whether it would break the shoulder or not, I don't know. I always thought that was a myth.

[Civil War Man]

I would not be surprised if more shoulder injuries were due to holding the gun improperly than from the actual recoil of the gun. Don't have any numbers to back that up, but from my admittedly limited shooting experience, I haven't had even the slightest problems. Of course, prior to my first trip to a shooting range, I had about 5 or 6 years of reenacting experience, where proper rifle handling is considered paramount.

[Trajanus]

I'm kinda wondering.. what sort of recoil for a gun might be needed to actually injure someone's shoulder? Does experience matter (could someone not familiar with a weapon injure themselves worse than someone who knows what they're doing?)

I recall hearing that the old "volley guns" like the 7 barreled Nock gun could break a shoulder. Would something like a .50 BMG rifle (like the Barrett) be able to as well? If not, is there a rifle that could (and how powerful is it)

There was a anti-tank rifle back during WWI made by the Germans called the "Tank-Gewehr' which was supposedly very uncomfortable to fire. However, I haven't heard of it breaking anyone's shoulder.

As for modern military weapons, I can only go by what I've seen during my time in the US Army, which is that none of them are capable of it. Any shoulder-fired weapon used by infantry range from 5.56 to 7.62mm. And from what I've heard talking to snipers, the Barrett is suprisingly confortable to fire thanks to its recoiling barrel and padded stock.

The most uncomfortable thing to fire is the M203, which can kick like a mule, but it still doesn't come close to breaking your shoulder.

[Singular Intellect]

One would think any weapon design that has the potential to easily break someone's shoulder wouldn't have a very long lifespan, production or use wise.

[Trajanus]

One would think any weapon design that has the potential to easily break someone's shoulder wouldn't have a very long lifespan, production or use wise.

Exactly. The Army is very picky about what weapons they will and will not use. Hell, they won't even switch to the XM8 over the M16 even though everyone who has tested it says it's an excellent weapon.

[Dark Flame]

In my experience, a proper grip can go a long ways towards mitigating recoil. Even firing a .50 caliber muzzleloader, as long as I held the rifle tight to my shoulder, and with the correct amount of powder for the optimum performance, I was okay.

This is purely anecdotal though.

[Napoleon the Clown]

If you have no idea what you're doing a 20 gauge shotgun can probably hurt your shoulder pretty bad. As far as shooting such weapons properly, the most you'll experience is probably bruising. Stuff that's going to have enough recoil tends toward having a lot less of the recoil hit you. The .50 cal being a prime example. They do so many tricks with it that it won't dislocate your shoulder and you can in fact empty the magazine in relatively short order, as demonstarated on an episode of Future Weapons. Without such tricks though, I'd imagine it could dislocate a shoulder and really fuck up a rotator cuff if you don't have the butt of the gun hard against your shoulder.

[Laughing Mechanicus]

The 0.55 calibre Boyes anti-tank rifle developed a reputationduring the Second World War for injuring the firer if it was not held correctly and absolutely firmly. The most common injury being breaking the collar bone (if you look at the shoulder stock you can see how that would happen) and also the occasional broken arm (likely from someone trying to shoot it from an awkward position). Commonwealth forces took to refering to it as "Charlie the Bastard" due to this and other design flaws.

When I was learning to shoot I hurt my bicep quite painfully because I held the butt of a 12 guage shotgun against it when trying to get a better firing angle from a hide, I learned quickly not to do that.

[Lord Revan]

yeah, only weapons (though my experience with weapons is rather limited) with could do that(meaning injure someones shoulder) by shear recoil without any user mistakes would be the 20+ mm stuff (aka cannons) with aren't meant to be used in that way.

[Zwinmar]

a 12 gauge shotgun can hurt pretty bad if you hold it incorrectly, limited to bruiseing for the most part, though my weakling cousin did partially dislocate his shoulder the first time he fired one...but then again, he was holding it wrong and I didnt feel like telling him otherwise until after he fired it.

Though I have to disagree about the M203, maybe, if you hold it wrong but I carried one for a year and didnt have a problem with recoil on it.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

I would not be surprised if more shoulder injuries were due to holding the gun improperly than from the actual recoil of the gun.

So if you hold the gun improperly, you may sustain a shoulder injury, but it won't be caused by the recoil? Do you think before you type?

Improperly holding a gun will exacerbate the recoil action, but the injury is still due to the recoil.

[chitoryu12]

I would not be surprised if more shoulder injuries were due to holding the gun improperly than from the actual recoil of the gun.

So if you hold the gun improperly, you may sustain a shoulder injury, but it won't be caused by the recoil? Do you think before you type?

Improperly holding a gun will exacerbate the recoil action, but the injury is still due to the recoil.

He meant what you said about the holding exacerbating the recoil. Read a little closer before you type.

[Knife]

Shot guns can bruise you up a bit, good shooting position or not. Also, the flachette round for the M203 has a hellashish kick to it and firing off a couple can leave you a bit sore.

There's also the odd case of bad stock weld and a black eye from getting too close. lol. Hurts like a bitch too.

Other than that, I can't think of anything else that has such a recoil to it, repeated fire hurts.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

I would not be surprised if more shoulder injuries were due to holding the gun improperly than from the actual recoil of the gun.

So if you hold the gun improperly, you may sustain a shoulder injury, but it won't be caused by the recoil? Do you think before you type?

Improperly holding a gun will exacerbate the recoil action, but the injury is still due to the recoil.

He meant what you said about the holding exacerbating the recoil. Read a little closer before you type.

I know what he meant. But it's not at all what he typed. Recoil is recoil. Hold the gun properly, and the recoil is dissipated with minimal damage to your shoulder. Hold it improperly, and the recoil can definitely harm you. It's still the same recoil though. In fact, it is the actual recoil of the gun in both cases. That's my (nitpicky) point.

[phred]

I met a guy who busted his shoulder with a 12 gauge shotgun. Of course the idiot did it by bracing his shoulder against a tree so the recoil wouldnt throw his aim off so badly

usually by the time a weapon starts getting big enough to hurt its user they start thinking of ways to handle the problem

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm kinda wondering.. what sort of recoil for a gun might be needed to actually injure someone's shoulder? Does experience matter (could someone not familiar with a weapon injure themselves worse than someone who knows what they're doing?)

I recall hearing that the old "volley guns" like the 7 barreled Nock gun could break a shoulder. Would something like a .50 BMG rifle (like the Barrett) be able to as well? If not, is there a rifle that could (and how powerful is it)

There's been people who've fired 4-gauge shotguns off the shoulder--a 4.25 ounce slug at 1,500 feet per second. It's all about positioning of the whole body and preparation. They were often knocked back, however, and the purpose of the gun was basically to fire a slug at very large African game in the days before high velocity (the famed Nitro Express rounds) smokeless powder.

[Trajanus]

I've also seen an idiot knock himself in the head by holding a .44 with one hand. Apparently, he thought that if Dirty Harry could do it, then so could he.

[Coyote]

Typically, injuring onself with a rifle/shotgun is something done by people who are new to shooting, and have a disproportionate fear of the recoil. I frequently see new shooters-- I don't mean to be sexist but it is almost invariably females that do this-- that are afraid of the recoil of a shoulder-fired weapon and hold it out, away from their shoulder an inch or two.

I rarely see guys do this, for some reason. Even guys who have never fired a weapon before and are fearful will tend to nestle the butt of the weapon into their shoulder, even if at awkward angles.

[Aaron]

Typically, injuring onself with a rifle/shotgun is something done by people who are new to shooting, and have a disproportionate fear of the recoil. I frequently see new shooters-- I don't mean to be sexist but it is almost invariably females that do this-- that are afraid of the recoil of a shoulder-fired weapon and hold it out, away from their shoulder an inch or two.

I rarely see guys do this, for some reason. Even guys who have never fired a weapon before and are fearful will tend to nestle the butt of the weapon into their shoulder, even if at awkward angles.

I watched a Private on the shotgun range on his first time out with the 12 gauge, fire it then spin around and fall over. I'm not sure how much of that was acting and how much of that was actual shock of firing the weapon for the first time. He was tiny though, he might have weighed 90lbs. He had a RSO up with him coaching him, so I don't know what the hell he was doing.

[Civil War Man]

I know what he meant. But it's not at all what he typed. Recoil is recoil. Hold the gun properly, and the recoil is dissipated with minimal damage to your shoulder. Hold it improperly, and the recoil can definitely harm you. It's still the same recoil though. In fact, it is the actual recoil of the gun in both cases. That's my (nitpicky) point.

Worded poorly, perhaps, but the point (that the recoil of most guns shouldn't hurt unless the weapon's improperly handled) still got across.

[chitoryu12]

I believe we've all seen the videos of the Middle-Eastern. men in a firing range with a shotgun. They held the damn thing so light it flew out of their arms. One was so shocked he fell over.

Now we know why terrorists prefer to just blow themselves up rather than fire guns.

[Spoonist]

I'm kinda wondering.. what sort of recoil for a gun might be needed to actually injure someone's shoulder? Does experience matter (could someone not familiar with a weapon injure themselves worse than someone who knows what they're doing?)

Experience/training matters a lot.
If you hold the rifle 1-2 inches from your shoulder when firing a higpowered rifle the recoil will send the rifle straight into your shoulder and that means at least bruising and if you are unlucky you could hit the collar bone at an angle resulting in a bruised/sprained bone. If you instead keep the rifle in a "tight" grip against the muscles the recoil is transfered more softly into a light push.

Viewing photos from african conflicts there are numerous instances of people firing with their AK47 at a distance from their body. That usually means that they have tried to fire from the shoulder once - got hurt and is then afraid of the recoil so instead of learning it proper they keep the but away from their bodies.

Other tidbits on the subject:

On the shooting range someone's friend fired a 357 magnum revolver for the first time and was not instructed properly so the recoil made the barrel hit him in the forehead. He was prepared for the recoil to hit in the angle of the handle, not the angle of the barrel...

When hunting season comes along the eye clinics around here have the busiest time of the year due to idiots using scopes and not bracing for the recoil.

When mentioning eye damage, you can get retina damage by the "vibrations" firing a powerful rifle close to the head. Something which WWII machine gun crews where tought to watch out for, not the gunner mind you but the one helping in feeding the gun.

[chitoryu12]

I remember someone saying that recoil for a Desert Eagle with the .50 AE ammunition is like "negative recoil". I don't quite remember what he meant by that though.