If I have to stand next to someone shooting that brake I'd rather not...
Noveske's Krink at least you can stand or shoot next too without loosing your hearing.
imo
Posted on 12/11/2005 9:13:46 PM PST by Flavius
John Kerin December 09, 2005
AN Australian company has developed a "recoil-less" rifle that overcomes the centuries-old danger of kickback.
The breakthrough could lead to the development of a new generation of lightweight weapons - from pistols, rifles and heavy artillery - that are faster, more powerful and more efficient and accurate.
Richard Giza, executive chairman of Melbourne-based Recoilless Technologies International, said last night the recoil or kickback of a gun had always been a big drawback, not only making a weapon more cumbersome but also more dangerous.
Australian defence scientists are understood to be keenly interested in the new technology, which could be used by the Australian Defence Force and lead to lucrative exports to Australia's allies.
Although details of the new technology remain top secret, the new rifle barrel "splits" dissipating energy in both directions rather than just backwards, as is the case in existing guns.
Mr Giza said it was expected the technology could be applied to a range of ballistic weapons, including pistols, rifles, field artillery and naval guns.
"This provides a cost-effective and practical way of eliminating recoil for the first time," Mr Giza said.
"The potential is not limited to ballistic weapons ... it's also hoped it can be applied to high-powered industrial tools (such as nail-guns), making manufacturing, construction and engineering much safer."
Ross Babbage, a leading defence expert who has seen the rifle in action, said the technology had the potential to make "many weapons more accurate, lighter, faster and far more effective in the field".
"It shows that relatively simple, practical and lightweight adaptations to conventional weapons designs can remove recoil completely," he said.
"It also promises to make operating weapons and industrial tools far safer ... eliminating injuries traditionally associated with recoil.
"It represents a revolutionary breakthrough that should provide Australia and its closest allies with a considerable advantage on the battlefield."
Professor Babbage said a prototype rifle had been tested in Melbourne but the technology was being kept under wraps.
Adam Vella, Commonwealth and Olympic Games shooting medallist and director of Recoilless Technologies International, will talk about the impact of recoilless guns on competition shooting at the Frankston-Australian Gun Club in Melbourne on Monday.
You're on the ball, mate. Who cares about a bit of recoil, it's only natural. What's more important to me is the properties of the ammunition, and in my opinion, the 5.56 only does half the job. Whatever you hit with the 7.62 (.308) goes down and won't get up, and that's the bottom line. Most of the people I know that were trained with the 7.62 would be more than willing to carry the extra weight because they know the capabilities of the weapon justify every little bit.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
/always thought a bleeding shoulder was a sign of a GOOD day at the range.
You are loosing 1/2 of the effectiveness of the rifle, how are you supposed to smash a commie/muzzie's head in with a rubber butt-plate, Ah well at least you still have the bayonet
Absolutely, just ask the DC sniper. I think one or two of the dozen plus that took a bullet survived.
RTI has built a working prototype that clearly demonstrates the capacity to control recoil to an extent that it can be eliminated completely, or alternatively have demonstrated a capacity to drag the weapon forward. RTI also has technology under development dealing with ballistically superior ammunition.
It doesn't have to bleed any gas, just redirect it to a termination at the the front or sides rather than the back of the cartridge (which then transfers the energy along the gun back to the shoulder/palm).
To do that it seems to me there would have to either be holes in the cartridge or in the barrel just ahead of the cartridge. These holes would dump the compression into forward oriented pockets. As long as the additional airspace was minimal, it might not affect the range significantly.
Prctice, practice, practice. The more ammo you shoot the less the apparent recoil.
I agree with you that the M14 was a very comfortable shooter.
I worked the record fire range at Ft. Ord in late '68. When the troops were in the bleachers for the instructional part, I would grab the best looking M14 I could find and have my buddy run the targets. After a while, it was no problem firing perfect scores from the offhand with no slings.
Two record fires a day and I was maybe blasting 2-300 caps.
Great fun.
Murphy's Laws of Land Warfare, Rule #45: Recoiless Rifles, aren't...
Try shooting 100 rounds through a 30'06 1903 or 1903A3. I've got both and I'd say they have more punch on the bullet end than any one of my Garands......
inconvience maybe...danger?....ok..if you say so..
"hit the gym..mumble mumble...candy a#$"
If I have to stand next to someone shooting that brake I'd rather not...
Noveske's Krink at least you can stand or shoot next too without loosing your hearing.
imo
Only so much as velocity is reduced by lower gas pressure behind the bullet. The direction of vented gas is also important. Newton's laws of conservation of momentum still apply, i.e. m1v1=m2v2 where m=mass and v=velocity
Doesn't exactly seem kosher to be using a rifle with no recoil in the Olympics.
The rifles for the Biatheletes hardly have any recoil as it is.
What do the biathaletes use?
I can imagine that one could produce a nearly recoilless firearm by running a pipe from the breach to near the muzzle (so as to be some distance from the shooter) and having that pipe feed a rearward-facing rocket nozzle. The pipe would have to start near the breach to minimize the amount of recoil before the bullet reached the pipe. Depending upon the amount of friction between the bullet and the barrel, the firearm could have either positive or negative "recoil" (e.g. if the bullet had so much friction that it barely moved, the rockets would generate forward thrust in excess of the net force (pressure minus friction) on the bullet). On the other hand, I would expect that it would be necessary to expend an awful lot of energy in the rocket, thus requiring a bigger powder charge for any particular desired amount of bullet energy.
No recoil = more accurate self defense weapons for the honest man.
Marine snipers have the same results at much longer yardage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.