Why don't we have any constant recoil machine guns? What

Ultimately, because its unnecessary.
In infantry rifles you use single shots and even in full auto, most intermediate cartridges are effectively recoilless
In machine guns, they tend to be sufficiently overbuilt for the stresses of prolonged automatic fire that the weight buffs much of the recoil anyway
There would probably be a place for a counter recoil system in battle rifles, except that the modern design philosophy behind most modern battle rifles is to get the base weapon as light humanly possible, and adding a bunch of weights to the gas block works counter to this.
Plus its one more point of failure.

>>33928662
Yes single shots are used for infantry rifles, why? Because fully automatic fire isn't accurate enough, also, like i mentioned the weight added will not have to be significant at all since if the moving weights are connected to the bolt the equivalent weight of the moving weights can just be subtracted from the bolt itself, or i guess bolt carrier.

File: 589393c67a57.jpg (73KB, 570x852px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 570x852px

>>33928621
>extremely accurate fully automatic fire
it less recoil than traditional system, but far from perfect

the system place less stress on the receiver, so they make perfect sense with LMG or GPMG

one negative point is that this system move the center of gravity forward, make it torture like experience holding this rifle in a long peior of time. Like doing room cleaning

>>33928738
>Yes single shots are used for infantry rifles, why? Because fully automatic fire isn't accurate enough

No, because it really doesn't accomplish anything and it's a waste of ammo, even if every single shot was a hit

>>33928764
The only reason i had the AK-107 as the thread starting picture was so that people can understand what i'm talking about with moving weights. AK-107 itself does not have constant recoil like i proposed.

What op means is where the bolt carrier doesn't impact the receiver at the rear, as the spring stops it before it reaches.

>>33928798
No, a lot of guns already have that. What op means is constant recoil where the recoil force experienced by the shooter is constant.

>>33928805
>What op means is constant recoil where the recoil force experienced by the shooter is constant.
finaly i understand OP concept

the only problem is how do you achieve that.

>>33928805
Google it.

>>33928837
With weights inside the gun moving at certain speeds, the recoil itself can't really be eliminated other than with some compensator magic but with some weights and some math one could easily make a constant recoil gun.

>>33928621
Seems like you're confusing things. Your picture shows a counter recoil system, which is supposed to eliminate the force spike of the bolt stopping its backward movement when hitting the stock by imparting equal impulse to a forward moving element and synchronizing it with the the backward movement of the bolt. A rather crude system that adds considerable weight and complexity. It's implemented in the AEK-971 and its derivatives.

Constant recoil is something different altogether. It's a system to avoid the instantaneous stopping of the bolt movement entirely by giving enough room for movement and enough spring force to reverse the movement before the bolt hits the stock. Additionally it seeks to lower the force by stretching the cycle with a lower cyclic rate since impulse is force times time. Lastly, it tries to even out all forces involved to achieve as little changes of recoil force tranferred to the shooter as possible. It's implemented in the Ultimax 100 and its derivatives.

>>33929274
My picture was just to illustrate the concept of moving weights inside the gun so that people can get a kind of an idea about what i'm talking about.

Also, the AK-107's counter balance system is simply there so that the bolt wont throw the gun around, and about the weight, the counter balance system like the one AK-107 doesn't have to add a lot of weight if the counter balance weight is connected to the bolt since you can just reduce the weight of the bolt by the same amount as the counter balance weight weighs.

A lot of guns have enough space in the receiver for the bolt to stop before hitting the back of the receiver, the Ultimax 100 isn't the only one.

Now what i'm talking about here is true constant recoil, where the recoil force felt by the shooter is truly constant for the entire time the gun is cycling.

>>33929401
>A lot of guns have enough space in the receiver for the bolt to stop before hitting the back of the receiver, the Ultimax 100 isn't the only one.
Yes, but the Ultimax does seek to lower and even out forces, as I mentioned. Jim Sullivan, co-designer of the AR-15, developed the formula for this. You can look up the original patent:
https://www.google.com/patents/US4475438

It doesn't achieve perfectly constant recoil but it's a lot more controllable than competitors. Based Ian has a video on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOUKXIrDE0I

File: kriss.gif (182KB, 480x210px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 480x210px

>>33928621

nobody has typed KRISS VECTOR yet in this thread ?

>>33929574
Nothing to do with this thread.
>>33929525
>formula
Cmon now dude that was just high school maths.

There is literally nothing more going on with the Ultimax other than the bolt not hitting the back of the receiver, the actual gun weighing like 11 pounds, and it having a low rpm.

>>33929670
>Cmon now dude that was just high school maths.
Sure. Still, someone had to come up with it first.

>There is literally nothing more going on with the Ultimax other than the bolt not hitting the back of the receiver, the actual gun weighing like 11 pounds, and it having a low rpm.
No. Bolt weight, moving distance, spring force etc have to be tuned together so that they match to produce more constant recoil.