Gun on the Shark?

[GGTharos]

Yup, and I think the best and easiest to understand muzzle brake is the Barrett's (M-82).

[arneh]

Ive always considered a rifle a type of weapon that fires a rifled round. I can see how rockets would have no recoil, but how can they be considered rifle rounds? I see what everyone is saying, but you can hardly call a rocket launcher a type of rifle.

 

Yes, techically it must be rifled to be a recoilless rifle, but as Wikipedia says:

" Technically, only devices that use a rifled barrel are recoilless rifles. Smoothbore variants (those devoid of rifling) are termed recoilless guns. This distinction is often lost, and both are often called recoilless rifles."

 

A rocket launcher you just put on your shoulder, fire, drop the canister (not a rifle) and get the hell outta dodge.

 

Yes, a rocket launcher is not techincally a recoilless rifle. It has a smooth barrel, it uses fins, and often have a rocket engine which continues firing after it has left the barrel. But it uses the same principle as a recoilless rifle, i.e. that it's open in the back so that the gases can escape backwards without having to be slowed by something (though some work by the principle of firing something else than just gas out the back to counter the force). It's usually not very safe to stand right behind such a gun :)

 

It's having to slow the gases which causes recoil on the gun. And having shock absorbers doesn't remove the recoil, it just spreads it out over a little longer time, so that it's not such a high sudden force.

 

Another disadvantage of a recoilless rifle is that it's hard to propel the projectile to very high speeds. The buildup of gas pressure is one of the ways to give it high speed, and if you just let that escape out the back then it won't have as high a velocity.

[sobek]

But the bang is just so much fun:D Had to do some medic assistance during a live fire exercise with the austrian version of the carl gustav when i spent my 8 months of mandatory service. Man that thing made my pants flap, even when standing 200 metres away.

[Yellonet]

I always thought it referred to the amount of recoil transferred to the shooter or whatever support the weapon has - NOT that the weapon itself is recoiless, as such a think does not exist when it comes to projectile weapons.

Well, I'm hardly an expert so that may be correct, but then where is the line drawn, some kind of force measurement onto the person firing?

When I think of a recoilless rifle I think of a long barrel with an open back end that vents most of the propellant exhaust straight back into open air. And although I think modern RRs such as that have very little recoil, there may be other kinds of RRs that possibly have a lot of recoil...

[Yellonet]

Which is what I expected myself...isnt that why heavy artillary have shock absorbers? It removes a lot of recoil from the blast. Its not just venting the gasses that prevents recoil, you have to have something that absorbs the shock of the round leaving the barrel. Exhaust gasses leave the barrel through the muzzle break, or through the gas tube to eject old brass and push the bolt backwards.

All true, but artillery is pretty much as far from recoilless that you can get :D

[RedTiger]

I think the "recoiless rifle" confusion is here because a recoiless rifle is a very specific thing. If I invented some sort of futuristic rifle that fired regular rounds with zero recoil....thats still not a "recoiless rifle".

 

Sorry if this has already been linked:

 

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

 

Its a specific type of thing and a specific classification of weapons.

[hitman]

All true, but artillery is pretty much as far from recoilless that you can get :D

Oh yeah. However, the Barret, as described by the US Army, is a recoilless rifle. Me kicking my foot up someones butt has recoil.

[slug88]

I've never seen the Barret referred to as a recoilless rifle. Care to provide a source?

[hitman]

How about "I personally was an armorer at 7th ESB Spt Company Armory" for 1st FSSG. Not Army, but those are MY credentials. I did TAD in the armory when I was on medboard. If you want further sources, your going to have to find the Army/Marine Corps/Navy M82 Field Manual. I dont have access to one anymore...I used to have a bunch of the books for them.

Edited August 29, 2008 by hitman_214th

[AlphaOneSix]

With quotes like "the muzzle brake absorbs 70% of the weapon's recoil" and the fact that the weapon is recoil-operated, it's clear that the U.S. Army does not recognize the M82A1 as being "recoilless".

[hitman]

With quotes like "the muzzle brake absorbs 70% of the weapon's recoil" and the fact that the weapon is recoil-operated, it's clear that the U.S. Army does not recognize the M82A1 as being "recoilless".

Actually, the M82A1 is "gas" operated. The field manual recognizes it as a recoilless sniper system. :huh:

[AlphaOneSix]

Actually, the M82A1 is "gas" operated. The field manual recognizes it as a recoilless sniper system. :huh:

 

You are correct, I am wrong. It is indeed gas operated. Thank you for your correction. However, and I cannot state this emphatically enough, if the FM does call it "recoilless", it's a marketing term, since, by definition, a weapon becomes "recoilless" by venting gases, and this rifle uses those gases to reload the next round.

[Yellonet]

Actually, the M82A1 is "gas" operated. The field manual recognizes it as a recoilless sniper system. :huh:

No, it is not gas operated, as previously mentioned it is recoil operated.

[hitman]

So that cartridge, which fires the propellant inside the chamber, which propels the round out the barrel, is all done by recoil? Where does this recoil come from?? Could it be...gas? It is a gas operated weapon. All guns that use a powder charge are gas operated weapons. Recoil is a by-product of this discharge.

[Yellonet]

So that cartridge, which fires the propellant inside the chamber, which propels the round out the barrel, is all done by recoil? Where does this recoil come from?? Could it be...gas? It is a gas operated weapon. All guns that use a powder charge are gas operated weapons. Recoil is a by-product of this discharge.

A weapon that is gas operated has a seperate tube for leading excess expanding gas back into the system and push the bolt backwards, the gas goes forward into the barrel and then into the tube and backwards again pushing the bolt back to expell the casing and reload another round into the chamber, this is how it works in assault rifles such as AK-47 and M-16.

Recoil operated weapons has no seperate gas tube but rely in on the instant backwards pushing force of the expanding gas to press the bolt backwards, examples are most pistols and older types of SMGs.

 

So, technically speaking all gun poweder weapons that has some automation is gas operated but that isn't how you classify them. If we go by that reasoning we can say that they're all chemical weapons as they use chemical gunpowder.

[AlphaOneSix]

All guns that use a powder charge are gas operated weapons.

 

I can no longer tell if you're being serious or if you're just baiting people into arguments. Since this argument has become so overblown into the ridiculous, I have to assume the latter. If you're being serious, then you are completely misunderstanding the difference between recoil and gas operated weapons. I don't mean offense, honestly, but I can't be much clearer than that. I will go ahead and stop replying to this thread, which has gone so far off-topic, that I don't think it will ever recover. If you'd like to continue a discussion about this topic with me, we'll have to do it via private messages.

 

My apologies to all other readers of this thread for being part of the problem of reducing it to this.

[hitman]

Recoil operated weapons has no seperate gas tube but rely in on the instant backwards pushing force of the expanding gas to press the bolt backwards

I can accept that. What was stated earlier said these weapons function on recoil alone. Thats what I read out of it. Recoil doesnt push the round out of the barrel either. That is part of the operating process. What I didnt catch was how the bolt was charged. Its 4am, I got back pains...be more specific. :thumbup:

I can no longer tell if you're being serious or if you're just baiting people into arguments.

You posted the same time I did. Like I said here, be more specific.

 

You are correct, I am wrong. It is indeed gas operated. Thank you for your correction. However, and I cannot state this emphatically enough, if the FM does call it "recoilless", it's a marketing term, since, by definition, a weapon becomes "recoilless" by venting gases, and this rifle uses those gases to reload the next round.

I just noticed this post. Again, like I said to Yellonet, I can accept this. I missed this part. It is indeed the recoil that charges the bolt.

Edited August 31, 2008 by hitman_214th

[Peyoteros]

geez people, you can talk for months about nothing...

[hitman]

What if you have nothing else to talk about? Whats left...cleaning your house? My place is already clean.

[Peyoteros]

well dude, when is nothing to say, I say nothing... better than farting the brains out loud... :)

[swepain]

well dude, when is nothing to say, I say nothing... better than farting the brains out loud... :)

 

 

Yea son.. tell em to ****** that's my boy! :thumbup:

[Avimimus]

Yes, a rocket launcher is not techincally a recoilless rifle. It has a smooth barrel, it uses fins, and often have a rocket engine which continues firing after it has left the barrel. But it uses the same principle as a recoilless rifle

 

Er... Arneh old boy, what about the S-25 340mm rocket? If I'm not mistaken it has rifling in the O-25 launcher (as well as angled booster rockets to help it "spin up").

 

I think the distinction between rockets, rocket-assisted projectiles and guns largely has to do with where the majority of the kinetic energy comes from (ie. if the majority comes from gravity, it is a "rocket assisted bomb", if the majority comes once the projectile has left the tube/rail it is a "rocket").

 

Recoilless designs are best defined as designs in which the recoil on the barrel is cancelled by an equal force in the opposite direction. It could be argued that tube launched rockets are a form of recoilless design (but not necessarily a gun - see above) as the rocket derives all of its energy from the gas efflux (and thus is largely independent of the launch system). Of course, a system like the RPG-7 doesn't qualify as it uses an additional explosive charge to get the missile clear of the barrel.

 

So far as I know "recoilless gun" and "recoilless rifle" are reserved for systems that fire a second projectile backward. Usually the forward firing round is a traditional "killing" shell, while the rearward firing round is a higher mass and therefore lower velocity counterweight (eg. a bean bag soaked in oil or containing lead pellets). The downside of a recoilless system is that it takes twice the charge to achieve a given velocity for the round. The upside is a lighter launcher that doesn't have to withstand recoil. I recall that the french in Algeria paratrooped motorcycles with fixed forward firing artillery calibre guns this way. The Ov-10 was also originally planned to be a recoilless rifle equipped system and the German's in world war two developed 350mm recoilless anti-shipping guns for bomber aircraft (but never fielded them).

 

If anyone is still confused see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_third_law

[cool_t]

As I was stating, is the Gun on the KA-50 going to be a problem during Combat.

 

1. Will the gun placement restrict the KA-50 in its Kill Zones?

 

2. Will the gun placement be an issuue during Combat?

 

3. How will the placement of the KA-50s' gun influence our placement on the battlefield?

 

4. Remember, the KA-50 is not the AH-64, you can not just look side too side with the gun and fire at bad guys.

 

:) :joystick:

[Yellonet]

1. Only if you put yourself in a bad situation

2. Same as 1

3. Yes, keep your distance. Shouldn't be a problem as the gun on the Ka-50 is quite accurate. A bonus with keeping some distance is that you'll be somewhat safer.

4. True. But if you go in where you would need to swing the gun left and right to engage enemies popping up all around you'd be pretty dead anyway. RPG grenades owns choppers.

[cool_t]

1. Only if you put yourself in a bad situation

2. Same as 1

3. Yes, keep your distance. Shouldn't be a problem as the gun on the Ka-50 is quite accurate. A bonus with keeping some distance is that you'll be somewhat safer.

4. True. But if you go in where you would need to swing the gun left and right to engage enemies popping up all around you'd be pretty dead anyway. RPG grenades owns choppers.

 

Hi there,

 

4. Combat is an unknown, improvise, adapt, and over-come. Restrictions on physical "Gun Placement" limitations can predict in-egression waypoints. Scary when you in the pit 4 real.

 

P.S. The word "Predict" is a refrence 2 Geological features such as who your engaging, what your engaging, where your engaged, why your engaged, and how you engage.

 

:pilotfly:

Edited September 3, 2008 by cool_t