eliminating (or significantly reducing) recoil

Off topic posts are welcome in this forum!
No smear campaign, or you will be banned!

Moderator: Mike Everman

Post Reply
El-Kablooey
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 3:39 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Northwest Georgia, USA

re: eliminating (or significantly reducing) recoil

Post by El-Kablooey » Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:14 am

here's a good example of recoil.
Attachments
ownedarmy.gif
ownedarmy.gif (481.88 KiB) Viewed 7391 times

Anders Troberg
Posts: 334
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:38 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Central Sweden
Contact:

re: eliminating (or significantly reducing) recoil

Post by Anders Troberg » Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:07 am

here's a good example of recoil.
Ouch, that got to hurt!
im pretty much out of ideas. help please?
The only idea I can think of is to arrange it like in recoilless rifles. An open tube and some more propellant, with a back blast instead of a closed end barrel.

I've never seen this done with small caliber weapons and have no clear idea of how it should be designed to be practical, but that's where I'd begin to look for solutions.

This brings up a related issue, the fact that it's not practical to increase the kinetic energy much more on small arms, yet the technology for personal protection still has a long way to go. A friend of mine speculated in something like a medieval armour, but made out of modern materials in several layers, with sloped surfaces. Such a suit could make a soldier very hard to injure, assuming that it worked (I think it's impractical and would hamper movement too much).

How would one bring enough firepower to the individual soldier to handle such an opponent? My friend did not think it was practically possible, but I think that it can be done "by proxy". Give the soldier a "laser rifle", in other words a target designator used to paint a target. When he pulls a trigger, artillery or missiles behind the front fires, and intelligently hits the spot he is aiming at. Such a system could probably by mostly automated. Perhaps, if the battle was large, the ordinance could be pre-launched and just aim itself at whatever target it may get on the way.

I hope no military guys are reading this, war is nasty enough without ideas like this...

Najm
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 9:59 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Karachi,Pakistan

re: eliminating (or significantly reducing) recoil

Post by Najm » Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:49 am

Give the soldier a "laser rifle", in other words a target designator used to paint a target. When he pulls a trigger, artillery or missiles behind the front fires, and intelligently hits the spot he is aiming at
Such a system is already in use.Those guys give the co ordinates of the target by using something like you said and an artillery strike is carried out.
The only idea I can think of is to arrange it like in recoilless rifles. An open tube and some more propellant, with a back blast instead of a closed end barrel.
Isn't a recoilles rifle a rocket launcher?

Najm
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 9:59 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Karachi,Pakistan

re: eliminating (or significantly reducing) recoil

Post by Najm » Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:18 pm

The fastest a round today can get is around mach 3 you are talking about 10 times that speed=mach 30. I am not sure a bullet can go that fast becuase of the sudden acceleration that is involved, it would break in the barrel, did you see the Mythbusters episode in which they fired a .50 caliber bullet in the water and it broke up on impact.

Anders Troberg
Posts: 334
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:38 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Central Sweden
Contact:

re: eliminating (or significantly reducing) recoil

Post by Anders Troberg » Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:48 pm

Such a system is already in use.Those guys give the co ordinates of the target by using something like you said and an artillery strike is carried out.
I know, but I envisioned something more automated, more direct and more accurate.

Today, you give a position with a target designator, then you call in a strike and they bombard the general area you pointed at for a while. My thought was more like a single, high precision shot at the designated point as quickly as possible when the trigger is pressed.
Isn't a recoilles rifle a rocket launcher?
Similar, but not the same. The difference is in the burn time of the propellant. A rocket launcher has a long burn time and works, hardly surprising, as a rocket. A RR has a very short burn time, and once the projectile is out of the barrel, it recieves no further propulsion.
i cant remember quite what a recoil-less rifle is, but i know that it looks alot like a mini artillery gun. its not something you can carry around very well.
It's like a tube which you fire from your shoulder.

However, I can't see why the same principle couldn't be applied to a smaller caliber. An open tube, with a shaped charge behind the projectile. As long as you can make it strong enough to withstand the pressure and you don't have anyone behind you when you fire, you can just increase the size of the charge.

It will not be a sniper weapon though, as the back blast will give away your position immediately.

Jonny69
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 8:14 pm

re: eliminating (or significantly reducing) recoil

Post by Jonny69 » Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:27 pm

To answer the original question, no you can't stop it.

Newton's third law of motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

So in the case of a freestanding gun barrel energy goes into the bullet, energy goes into the gun (you get that as recoil) and a little is lost as heat which I've disregarded. You can make the gun barrel heavier but it just means the velocity at which it recoils is lower.

Najm
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 9:59 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Karachi,Pakistan

re: eliminating (or significantly reducing) recoil

Post by Najm » Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:03 pm

You can make the gun barrel heavier but it just means the velocity at which it recoils is lower.
Thats partly the reason why anti-material snipers are so heavy.
due to higher velocities making wind less of a factor,
Have you studied relative velocity,even a bullet travelling at three times the speed of sound will move much in gentle wind over a kilometre,its up to the sniper on how skillfully he fires the weapon.
BTW RDX is an explosive which is known for its high shattering effect.

vhautaka
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 12:32 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: finland

re: eliminating (or significantly reducing) recoil

Post by vhautaka » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:20 pm

An open barrel won't do the trick. Most of the blast would go straight out of the back, inducing recoil forward.

At least the gases first have to set the round moving, then they can be ejected through a rear-facing port. Not eliminating recoil, but considerably decreasing it. Of course you'll need more gunpowder...

See Davis gun:
http://www.big-ordnance.com/Davis/davis_ammunition.htm
http://www.cyberspacei.com/jesusi/peace ... c506458860
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4676136.html

For nice pics,
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/cannon_pioneers.htm

Then the modern version, portable even.
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn56-e.htm

In Finland a kind of bazooka was developed in the 60s and 70s, with no rifling and a more mortar-like round of at least up to 81 mm. And water as the counterprojectile. The more modern designs use plastic captive pistons, the back one heavier, containing the blast almost entirely in the barrel.

Gunpowder is very much fast enough for gun use, the future of ammunition will anyway be self-propelling and self-guiding (to get past/around countermeasures). Maybe miniature solid fuel ramrockets whose trajectory is programmed microseconds beforehand by the gun, with feedback from multiple radars etc.

Jim Berquist
Posts: 1396
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:34 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: DEMING NM 88030

re: eliminating (or significantly reducing) recoil

Post by Jim Berquist » Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:53 pm

Recoil less rifle: Think of a semi shaped charge behind a round and or projectile. This charge sends the round down the RIFLED tube/barrel. Hence recoil less rifle. Rifling aids stability of round in flight by setting up a gyro type stabilization situation..Equal amounts of thrust exit the rear of the tube. Many G.I.'s damaged in the process....This system is still used for avalanche control in many areas!!!!


Recoil: This can be handled in the traditional ways! You can place a floating dead weight in the stock supported by springs to take up some recoil. As don in the M-16 and other rifles. or you can use Muzzle Brakes! This system uses the last few inches of the barrel ported with jet ports to pull the rifle away from you on exit of projectile.

All of this is readily available in Most hunting and gun magazines...

A bang is a bang, I would think that our illustrious governments would have all ready tried this??????

Jim.
WHAT TO FRAP, IT WORKED![url=callto://james.a.berquist]Image[/url]

steve
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:29 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Clinton Conneticut / Melbourne Flordia
Contact:

Re: re: eliminating (or significantly reducing) recoil

Post by steve » Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:57 am

El-Kablooey wrote:here's a good example of recoil.
hehe, that's the first time I've seen that picture outside of 4chan. are you secretly a /b/tard? if you have no idea what I'm talking about, then um, pretend I didn't say anything, and I'll drift back to the shadows now...

picture sort of related...
Attachments
1150260722199.jpg
1150260722199.jpg (59.01 KiB) Viewed 7289 times
Image

El-Kablooey
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 3:39 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Northwest Georgia, USA

re: eliminating (or significantly reducing) recoil

Post by El-Kablooey » Wed Jul 26, 2006 5:29 am

Ummm... Steve.. No.. but you sparked enough curiosity that I had to google it.. sort of interesting. I'm glad my son wasn't in the room.

I like the pic you posted, that's one ghetto FA setup!

vhautaka
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 12:32 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: finland

Re: re: eliminating (or significantly reducing) recoil

Post by vhautaka » Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:34 am

superhornet59 wrote:the speed at which RDX expands is approximately 25,000 fps.
....
would it break up in the barrel from acceleration? im sure at some point it would, but at 15,000 fps, it will not break apart, metals are soft and can be molded. if it was a ceramic projectile, then i agree it would be shattered.
Yes, but if the RDX is placed next to the bullet, it's equal to firing the bullet into water, or concrete, or steel. The shockwave deforms the backside of the bullet, effectively treating the metal as fluid, before the frontside even knows that something is happening back there. And an equal shockwave will hit the chamber walls, even though this can be somewhat countered by a shaped charge (which then would bore straight through the bullet).

You'd have to damp down the shock by first absorbing it in air or other medium, maybe putting your high explosive in the centre of a big chamber and then routing the pressure down the barrel. And you'd be back to square one, accelerating the bullet through the barrel at speeds that you could perfectly well get from a simple powder charge with a lot less complexity.

Also, there's a reason why gunpowder comes in a grainy form: you can put more powder in the charge and the grains will continue burning for all the time the bullet is traveling through the barrel, keeping the pressure up as long as possible. If you charged your rounds with the same amount of a fine powder it would explode all at the same time and be fatal with most normal guns, not to mention a lot less effective.

Anders Troberg
Posts: 334
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:38 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Central Sweden
Contact:

re: eliminating (or significantly reducing) recoil

Post by Anders Troberg » Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:30 am

Recoil less rifle: Think of a semi shaped charge behind a round and or projectile. This charge sends the round down the RIFLED tube/barrel. Hence recoil less rifle.
I usually find it easier to think about it as a rocket with an extremely short and intense burn time, launched from a tube. Of course, this oversimplifies things a bit, but as a conceptual model, it works.

As usual, wikipedia has some things to say about the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle

Bruno Ogorelec
Posts: 3542
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 7:31 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

re: eliminating (or significantly reducing) recoil

Post by Bruno Ogorelec » Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:33 am

I was using the Croatian 125mm version of the US-developed 106-mm M40 recoilless gun (light cannon) in the war. It had the rear venturi nozzle that accelerated the gases greatly to generate momentum equal to that of the shell leaving the barrel at the front end.

The most eerily accurate weapon I have ever fired. You could almost have taken apples off Wilhelm Tell's head if you really wanted to. It had a rifle-style aiming mechanism and you could theoretically have fired it off your shoulder, but I've never seen anyone actually do it.

Back blast was truly deadly -- and visible for miles, so you had to fire and scramble immediately to an alternate position if you didn't relish becoming a target. The thing is nowhere near as light as they would have you believe, so that 'scrambling' was never as agile as it should have been and was accompanied by plenty of potent Balkans-style cursing, which usually mixes genitalia and Catholic saints in unusual combinations.

I love that weapon dearly but someone really should have thought about shielding that blast somehow to make it less conspicuous. Also, we were issued the wheel-equipped light carts to carry things around just a few days before I quit the Army. Before, we had to carry them around manually, holding the handles. The wonders of military logistics....

Jim Berquist
Posts: 1396
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:34 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: DEMING NM 88030

re: eliminating (or significantly reducing) recoil

Post by Jim Berquist » Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:06 am

Steve! What was that? A M-14 for really fast Rabbits?

Anders! That's the Beast!!!!! At the bottom they even mentioned that avalanche thing!!!

Ho Yea!!!! They are no longer called the ATF (Alcohol Tobacco and Fire Arms) Now they are known as the ATFE ( Alcohol Tobacco Fire Arms and Explosives )


Jim
WHAT TO FRAP, IT WORKED![url=callto://james.a.berquist]Image[/url]

Post Reply