Yeah, another terminology gripe.

Where did “It’s a soft shooter” originate? It seems to becoming more and more prevalent, and based on the many times I’ve encountered it, I gather that it means the gun doesn’t have much felt recoil. If that’s the case, why not say, “It has less felt recoil than the XYZ”? Recoil is what guns have. Soft makes it sound like a toilet paper commercial.

What’s next? “Oh, Pet, the Hoppe’s and 700X I’m using with my Alien meld together ever so wonderfully to form the most delightful fragrance”?

Uhhh, Hoppe's IS 'the most delightful fragrance' all by itself...

Likely from the ever increasing chance that you are trying to sell a gun to a woman. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I'd bet that is the primary reason for such a phrase.

I think it came from, and tend to use it, in the context of open-bolt versus closed bolt subguns. Closed bolt guns tend, at least for me, to shoot "softer" in that they don't have that open bolt chatter like Uzis and Ingrams.

quote:

Originally posted by kidcop:
they don't have that open bolt chatter like Uzis and Ingrams.

You could say that.

And you see, without your saying that, I would have no idea what "soft" meant in your example. So not only am I reminded of a toilet paper commercial, I am not informed as I'm sure you'd like me to be.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
...why not say, “It has less felt recoil than the XYZ”? Recoil is what guns have. Soft makes it sound like a toilet paper commercial...

It's a "soft shooter" requires less effort (in both conversing and typing). And it is really soft, like Charmin.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
Uhhh, Hoppe's IS 'the most delightful fragrance' all by itself...

Yeah, but combined with the fragrance of burnt 700X, it's heaven.

Got to thinking about the OPs rant and here's my 2 cents worth.

It has less felt recoil thn XYZ is specific to comparing it to one particular handgun.

Saying it's a soft shooter is generic in that it doesn't compare it to anything at all, just says recoil is mild. I've been hearing this one for at least 30 years or so.

I see uses for both expressions.

I guess the Russians or Democrats have been censoring what I heard and read for the past 50 years or so because it’s only in the past couple of years I’ve heard/seen the expression in any context to refer to felt recoil or anything else. But then it wouldn’t been the first time my experiences—or at least memories—have been different from someone else’s.

But whether I missed it all these years does not change my opinion of the expression, and I will remember it if I ever see a toilet paper commercial again.

A .44 Magnum loaded with .44 Specials has less, therefore "softer," recoil, than the same gun with full-power loads. I consider .45 ACP to have a gentler, "sharp push" recoil than the "snappy" recoil of .40 S&W. Unlike improper word usage like "ordinance" when you mean "ordnance" or "reign in" when you mean "rein in," I don't find "soft-shooting" to be wholly inappropriate.

I do understand that most 44 Special loads have less recoil than many 44 Magnum loads, and when I shot a lot of the latter, that’s how I put it. People understood that as well.

As for what other people used to say, I would have had a vivid memory of it if Dirty Harry had said his handloads were “softer shooting” than full power ammunition. But he didn’t. He said they were easier to control because they had less recoil.

But we can agree to disagree about whether we are referring to what guns do or whether we are characterizing toilet paper.

When I see a post with "soft shooter", I expect other posts from the same person of "the rifle is sub-MOA, all day long, as long as I do my part." The drivel-o-meter is pegged in the warning zone.

^^^ As long as the fitment is right.

I am a confirmed language curmudgeon and grammar NAZI, but "soft shooter" doesn't bother me in the least. It seems an apt expression.

So, what’s the opposite?
“It’s a rough shooter.”
“It’s a hard shooter.”
“It’s a firm shooter.”
“It’s an erect shooter.” I believe that will be my new favorite.

I of course don’t expect to change any practices. In fact, whenever I post something like this I can expect to see a rash of posts that are obviously intended to use the term as a way of exercising the poster’s right to say “soft shooter” if he wants to.

But at least I got it off my chest.
(Next will probably be a rant about Internet firearms and ammunition testing protocols.)

Although I don't think I have ever used the term, soft shooter has never struck me as annoying.

Weirdly, perhaps, "felt recoil" does. It seems kind of pretentious in its supposed technical correctness, when "felt" is just as subjective a description as "soft". Is there some device that scientifically measures recoil, like we measure trigger pull weight? There may be but I've not seen or heard about one.

Just say "recoil"

I agree that “felt” recoil is to a degree the same sort of unnecessary enhancement of the term. It does, however, focus on the fact that the shooter can perceive the same absolute amount of recoil differently with different guns. The one time I shot a Glock chambered for 40 S&W it hurt my hand, whereas I can shoot SIG pistols of similar weight and barrel length with no discomfort at all. The recoil of the different guns isn’t significantly different, but how I feel it certainly is.

There should probably be a term to describe what I’m referring to that doesn’t include “recoil” at all, but I’m not sure what it would be. And of course none of the pundits who discuss such things would have any interest in changing their terminology.

When you only take one of the two recommended
Horny Goat Weed® capsules.

Then of course, there's recoil tolerance which varies tremendously from one person to the next.

For many years, I'd shoot 200 or so full house .44 Magnums each time I took a .44 to the range. I haven't done that in a long time but it takes a lot of recoil to get my attention, so me telling someone that it doesn't have much recoil is very misleading.

The opposite is also true of many shooters which further complicates the terminology.

I recently referred to the G20 as shooting softly. I was so pleasantly surprised by how comfortable the recoil was the first time I shot it, softly seemed like the appropriate adverb.

quote:

Originally posted by tigereye313:
I recently referred to the G20 as shooting softly.

I wasn’t going to get into the grammatical aspects of the issue, but now that it’s been brought up, that is another thing.

“Soft” in the sense of a “soft shooter” is an adjective modifying “shooter” which in that expression is a gun, i.e., a noun. In that context therefore, what it implies is that the gun is soft, or to use a couple of synonyms, that’s it’s squishy or malleable, or perhaps flaccid (to return to one of my antonyms). That, of course, is not what people mean by the expression. What they’re referring to is how it shoots, not the “shooter.” That means the proper modifier would be an adverb in a phrase such as, “It shoots softly,” as you correctly pointed out and used—but which most people don’t.