Why aren't all guns recoilless?

wastes energy and makes a ruckus

>>35080701
Because they are less efficient and u use gases to propel the gun instead of the projectile

Think about what happens when you fire one of those inside a tank turret. Where does the gas go?

>>35080701
Ummmmmmm. Did you fail highschool?

For every reaction on opposite reaction occurs. Therefore projecting a bullet creates recoil. You can mitigate it, but not remove it.

Tl;dr; physics homeboy

>>35080736
I didn't add, it's a thing referred to as Newton's Law.

>>35080736
retard

>>35080753
Elaborate, retard #2

>>35080736

the recoil is imparted onto the exhaust gasses

retard

>>35080701
Because you don't want to get shit blasted all over you every time you shoot?
Because even if they found a way to vent it around you, you wouldn't want to have to check over your shoulder to make sure you weren't giving your buddy a hot steamy blast in the face whenever you fire?

>>35080783
Ok. You fucking moron. Thanks for proving my point lulz.

>>35080806
don't be upset because you don't know what a recoilless rifle is you fucking faggot

>>35080701
The whole point is to have something in a caliber that is normally meant for an AT gun or artillery piece that can be man portable.

For a single shot weapon this is fine but for an infantry rifle or anything else that needs to be full / semi auto it will not work as all the energy that would go into cycling the action is vented backward

File: recoil test.webm (351KB, 540x360px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 540x360px

>>35080806

>>35080806
People pay money to go to college. I'm not going to teach you Newton's Law for free.

My tax money already is supposed to do that. Which most highschoolers know.

>>35080872
That is really cool

>>35080895
Directed at You
>>35080825
I know anyone who knows anything knows better. But you might be fooling my /k/ids.

>>35080736
>"well akshully"
>psued autist drops in to nitpick the recognized title for rifled open breach artillery dating back to pre-ww1, as if his self-assured pedantry is going to impress anyone
kys

>>35080806
awh it's okay sweetie. One day, you might learn to read a fucking book and understand physics better

>>35080872
After anybody watches this webm, there is LITERALLY no way they can argue against the need to Recoilless infantry guns.

>>35080872
that's real fuckin' nato

>>35080932
One day your mom will get married. Then his wife's son might go with him shooting. Enter the convo that day.

>>35080973
Are you saying that I might go shooting with myself? I do that all the time. You can't refute a proven, patented concept with your intellectual dick flexing (which happens to be entirely wrong)

>>35080989
You impregnated your mom, or you can't read? Or possibly both?

Lowers muzzle velocity plus you don't want the hot gases ejecting on your face and hand
unless you're into that

If you're going to make a recoilless infantry rifle, where is the backblast going to go?

Into the infantryman's gut? His face? His arm?

>>35080701
Because only fart fetishists like hot gas blasting into their face.

>>35080950
Seems to me that we should just have them armed with various explosives.

>>35081005
his dick

>One day your mom will get married. Then his wife's son might go with him shooting.

Then you said

>Are you saying that I might go shooting with myself

Are you really inbred?

Stop fucking dick measuring about newton's laws and eachother's mothers.

With a recoil less rifle the vast majority of the recoil is directed onto the gasses. There is still a tiny bit of recoil though because a little bit of the force is still directed onto the rifle mostly from friction between the vents and the gases.

>>35081058
He could be European bro. Inbreeding is popular there.

>>35080701
backblast

>>35080950
Except maybe the fact that there is a giant flash behind it that incinerates anything a couple feet behind it.

>>35080736
>redirecting the gasses in such a way that the recoil is compensated for
The principle behind a recoilless rifle is like an ultra-efficient compensator, propelling the gun forward as the recoil forces it backwards, canceling the forces.

>>35081144
>>35081005
>>35081001
>>35080791
>>35080870
>>35080783
>>35080726
>>35081150
>make the gas go out the front
what now retards?

>>35081166
I'd rather wear a big neon sign on my head that says "Shoot Here" also rip sight picture, night vision, etc.

>>35081166
You now have recoil.

>>35081166
that would make the recoiless rifle have recoil

>>35081166
this is what most rifles already do and it creates recoil

it is mitigated by making some of it go backwards inside the gun

see: literally every assault rifle ever made that isn't made by HK or FN (muh roller delayed blowback)

>>35080701
If every rifle had deadly backblast, I would suspect that there would be a hell of a lot more accidental gun deaths and injuries, on the battlefield and in the civilian world

>>35080783
Wait. Why are people disputing this anon made a perfectly valid fact. Is it a /k/ meme to pretend laws of physics don't exist?

>>35081247
>>35081150
>>35081144
You guys do realize the powder charge and the required energy to negate a .223 is much, much less than that of an RPG, right?

>>35081357
and then you're left with almost no energy to propel what is already a very light projectile

>>35080872
the different masses of the guns isn't accounted for. Nor is there any information about the mass or powder loading of the different rounds. This is meaningless.

File: IMG_0356.jpg (303KB, 1155x603px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1155x603px

Obviously, the solution is to make bolters irl.

>>35081400
......................................................

>>35081400
>literally demonstrates the force-cancelling principle behind a recoilless rifle
>it's meaningless
Come on now

>>35080701
Backblast can be a bitch

>>35081462
the motion of the gun only indicates the force of the recoil if the guns have the same mass

>>35081537
On a scale of 1 to a bowl of crayons for breakfast, how retarded are you?

>>35081166
congrats you now have recoil thus negating the entire idea of a recoilless rifle you fucking nitwit

File: 1502932941879.jpg (59KB, 960x624px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 960x624px

Because an RPG is a rocket propelled grenade. As in there is a rocket burning behind it as it flies down range. If you cycle out all of those gasses behind a bullet, which is propelled solely by those gasses, you have officially fucked your ballistics all to shit.

>>35080895
>Newton's Law
It is a well-known fact that Sir Isaac has not just one law, but three laws of motion

1. an object at rest cannot be stopped
b. f=ma
3. for every lame ass post there is an equal and opposite lame ass post

>>35081537
found the kid that failed algebra

>>35081607
>RPG
>actually thinking it means "rocket propelled grenade"
>thinking a recoilless rifle is the same as an RPG

found the fucking moron.

File: 1310496003560[1].jpg (11KB, 258x314px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 258x314px

>>35081166
>I never studied Physics, the post

>>35081607
>RPG Not a recoiless weapon

The Rocket only kicks in half way down range to the target, the rocket gets propelled out the launcher via an explosive charge. Which is set off via a percussion cap and a hammer.

All Expanding gasses that are not used lob the rocket out the front vent towards the rear of the weapon counter balancing it... thus making it recoiless.

However because the RPG launcher is a smooth bore you can't call it a recoiless rifle. Just a recoiless weapon

>>35081294
/k/ doesn't believe in physics. Or the rule of law. Or the Constitution of the United States other than the second amendment, and even then only so far as it serves their own interests. Lurk moar, faggot.

>>35080701
The question you should be really asking is:

Why isn't there an A-10 replacement with a recoilless autocannon?

File: feelsgoodman zerg.jpg (28KB, 407x405px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 407x405px

>>35081357
>implying .223 is a hard recoiler in the first place
intermediate calibers = suck it up and deal with the negligible recoil
rifle calibers = still /notevenbad/. use muzzle brakes and buffer tubes if you want
anti material rounds = fancy recoil absorbing actions, fancy moving barrels, fuckhueg muzzle brakes
anything above = recoilless rifles or crew served stuff on tripods and vehicles
>mfw that's how damn near everyone already does things because it makes sense

>>35080701
hang yourself

File: Untitled.png (281KB, 809x910px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 809x910px

>>35080701
Over9000 hours in paint

>>35081166
beautiful

File: image.png (1MB, 600x898px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 600x898px

>>35080701
Because you touch yourself at night.

File: 1494981178004.png (343KB, 840x1410px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 840x1410px

>>35080701

>>35084604
man I haven't seen this in ages this brings me back.

File: GRRREAAT ASSSS.jpg (19KB, 315x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 315x400px

>>35081166

>>35081166
Double recoil

It's simple you fools we just need to fire the gun in the other direction when you fire the shot. Plus you can shoot bad guys behind you

>>35082455
I think the Russians and couple other nations have counter-recoil devices that make shooting them the equivalent of firing an airshit gun.

File: 1498271005979.jpg (41KB, 299x305px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 299x305px

>>35081166

>>35081166
Checkmate physics

>>35085141
The Russian counterweight thingy is only there to negate the heavy af AK bolt throwing the gun around.

>>35081537
Jesus dude, read a book, or finish your GED or something.
God damn.

File: pyro flamer.jpg (5KB, 240x210px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 240x210px

>>35081166

File: .....gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>35081166
>>make the gas go out the front
>what now retards?

>>35080701
Because recoilless rifles have a really slow muzzle velocity, hence they are mostly used with HE and HEAT.

>>35080736
>Ummmmmmmmmm
Fucking kill yourself.

because the gyrojet sucked

>>35080950
Arguably, rockets replace recoilless rifles but that's only if you want to split hairs.

>>35086749
Not really.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTKatc_IBQk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJs9sBBjLls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-73_5LWMgdc

>>35081150
Acceptable. Back blast is easy to manage as long as you keep the team in a line abreast. It's only when you start wandering the line that this becomes problematic.

The flash is a minor issue as the enemy would quickly locate you via muzzle flash and noise anyway. You can deal with this by relocating between shots. Considering the damage you can do with a recoilles rifle this actually works to your advantage as you want to hit your enemy from different angles to keep them off guard.

>>35081357
The drop in muzzle velocity would make that .223 useless, though.

>>35081441
Boltguns are surprisingly practical when you ignore the economics . We had Gyrojets that did the same thing and worked perfectly as long as you were a good twenty paces away from the target.

>>35088485
truth is for sniper and anti-material applications the gyrojet is superb. for sub-machine guns and pistols it's pants on head retarded.

but they only made gyrojet sub-machine guns and pistols so...

File: MelodicVillainousHermitcrab-size_restricted.gif (3MB, 236x157px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 236x157px

>>35080736
Kill yourself nigger

>>35081230
when did FN make a rller delayed blowback

>>35081400
>being this retarded
Don't be this retarded.

>>35088516
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3IiWjdbUZg

There was a carbine version made but the ammo was so expensive that it never took off.

Vrei sa pleci dar nu ma, nu ma iei,
Nu ma, nu ma iei, nu ma, nu ma, nu ma iei.
Chipul tau si dragostea din tei,
Mi-amintesc de ochii tai.

>>35080736
That doesn't actually answer anything. Recoilless weapons counter the recoil with thrust in the opposite direction.

>>35088465
5.45 has less recoil than even the 5.56 so it's really no surprise that with the bolts movements cancelled out it doesn't have a lot of recoil.

>>35088516
The thing is that trying to get good accuracy with gyrojet design is hard af since you're never gonna get a completely consistent burn, for machineguns i could totally see it working somewhat well though.

File: 1444259844254.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>35080701
You tell me.

>>35088485
Bolters use both gyrojet-style and regular propellant, so that it has more short-range punch than pure gyro would

>>35080726
Have the exaust tube all all of the way out of the back of the turret

File: 297149_10152216547110711_1628012152_n.jpg (49KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 960x640px

>>35081166

>>35088620
True, but the AK 107 almost completely eliminates the already small recoil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-107

>>35080701

Because iron sights

File: AHHHHH.jpg (149KB, 500x608px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 500x608px

what did I just read

>>35089304
Would take up excessive turret space that could be used for crew or ammo.

There was a particular tank that had a set of recoiless rifles mounted entirely externally but the guns couldn't be practically armored.

File: sturmtiger.jpg (77KB, 736x619px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 736x619px

>>35081176
>>35081187
>>35081217
>>35081230
>>35081567
>>35081869
>>35083873
>>35084787
>>35084835
>>35085202
>>35085331
>>35086844
>>35088350
>>35089327
checkmate atheists

>>35081166

are you referring to a muzzle brake?

>>35081400

>>35080701
1.) You cannot carry as much ammo as you would with normal guns because you would need extra powder to create the gasses needed to negate the recoil of the bullet.
2.) To create guns that allow hot gasses to escape to the rear (TOWARD THE USER) is a stupid idea when the results are a minor reduction in recoil when compared to using compensators to manage recoil.
Not all guns need to be recoiless, end of conversation.

File: advance_wars_tank_by_symias-d6xr7oi.png (316KB, 1024x390px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1024x390px

>>35090603
Holy fuck. Advance Wars IRL

>>35090603

>Taking a picture of tank
>Not taking a picture of the shell drawing for my 1:1 scale 3D printed sturmtiger dildo made in solidworks

>>35080701
>Why aren't all guns made 2 times as complicated and heavy?

>>35081400
Into the gas chamber you go.

>>35088406
THIS, niggers

>>35081537
>>35081400
McFucking kill yourself holy shit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle

>>35081166
ITT: People taking a shitpost seriously

>>35081166
What happens if you make the recoil go out of the bottom?

>>35080701
because cost

>>35090603
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmtiger

>The main armament was the 380 mm Raketen-Werfer 61 L/5.4, a breech-loading barrel, which fired short-range, rocket-propelled projectiles roughly 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in) long. There were a variety of rounds with a weight of up to 376 kg (829 lb), and a maximum range of up to 6,000 m (20,000 ft), which either contained a high explosive charge of 125 kg (276 lb) or a shaped charge for use against fortifications, which could penetrate up to 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) of reinforced concrete. The stated range of the former was 5,650 m (6,180 yd). A normal charge first accelerated the projectile to 45 m/s (150 ft/s), the 40 kg (88 lb) rocket charge then boosted this to about 250 m/s (820 ft/s).

>The design of the rocket system caused some problems. The hot rocket exhaust could not be vented into the fighting compartment nor could the barrel withstand the pressure if the gasses were not vented. Therefore, a ring of ventilation shafts was put around the barrel which channeled the exhaust and gave the weapon something of a pepperbox appearance.

>Due to the bulkiness of the ammunition, only 14 rounds could be carried, of which one was already loaded, with another in the loading tray.

>The rest were carried in two storage racks. To help with the loading of ammunition into the vehicle, a loading crane was fitted at the rear of the superstructure next to the loading hatch. Even then, the entire five man crew had to help with the loading.

Essentially a bore evacuator for an impractical but entertaining device on tracks.

>>35094323
You increase muzzle climb.

File: e83cid.gif (19KB, 475x143px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 475x143px

>>35089361
That wiki page is so full of shit, a bolt action rifle will, for example, still have recoil even though it doesn't have a bolt swinging back and forth.

>>35080701
Have you shot one of those? From what I've heard, it's not fun. From my limited experience with muzzle brakes, I can see why.

File: brake-performance-616x900.jpg (199KB, 616x900px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 616x900px

I mean you could make a gun that has a lot of excess powder so that a lot of gas is vented backwards at an angle by a compensator, with enough excess powder and a big enough comp you could make it more or less recoilless, wouldn't want to be the guy standing next to this gun being fired but it would still work with fairly minimal changes to how firearms function in general.

Hell, modern AR-15 compensators already almost completely eliminate recoil, now if there were a bit more powder in the 5.56 case or the barrel was a short one combined with a big brake i'm sure you could reach 100% reduction.

>>35094663
What if you make gas go out the top with a little going out the bottom so the muzzle doesn't go down too much

>>35081357
dude .223 is already recoilless

>>35081616
b is soppose to say f=ml

File: 1367729254176.png (8KB, 493x402px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 493x402px

>>35081166
add me in the screencap!

File: b47e753e6524a8a93bac43cb50a5070d--timeless-photography-movement-photography[1].jpg (114KB, 736x736px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 736x736px

>>35081974
not taking it far enough. increase the cases large enough that you still have enough energy to fire the round downrange, but instead of no recoil, your ejecting LOTS of gases out the back
>instead of slowing down when you fire your brrrrt from recoil
>YOU GO FASTER
>trigger is labeled both DEATH and TURBO

>>35096155
its called a compensator

you can get negative recoil(forward and down) on high pressure rifles with light bullets and an extreme muzzle device

File: rt-20 recoiless sniper rifle.jpg (39KB, 600x416px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x416px

Can someone explain to me why Recoiless Rifles don't lose a ton of energy compared to closed systems? Seems like a cylinder gap turned up 11

Also contributing: RT-20 20mm Recoilless Sniper Rifle from Croatia.

>>35088485
>Boltguns are surprisingly practical when you ignore the economics . We had Gyrojets that did the same thing and worked perfectly as long as you were a good twenty paces away from the target.

Gyrojets are nothing like bolters. This shit is an automatic RPG. Propellant forces the projectile out, then the rocket ignites.
The whole thing about gyrojets is removing the initial charge which bolters do not.

>>35096528
They do. See the size of the 106mm rcl case vs the 105mm L7 case, and compare muzzle velocities for comparable projectile weights.

>>35089277
>>35096612
Technically true, although the kicker charge is actually a new addition to WH40k lore. The magazine and automatic fire, however, are borrowed from the gyrojet design.

File: 1504785563240.jpg (87KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1024x1024px

>>35081166

File: What_1.jpg (46KB, 468x895px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 468x895px

>>35081166

File: 1479326297104.png (485KB, 629x353px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 629x353px

>>35081166

File: rZOaHhx.png (56KB, 192x154px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 192x154px

>>35081166

File: recoilless_rifle.jpg (123KB, 809x910px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 809x910px

>>35080701
Because all that gas should be used to propel the the projectile instead of disheveling the operator.

>>35081023
>her dick

File: [Commie] Girls und Panzer der Film [BD 1080p AAC] [49139D76]-0001.jpg (174KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1920x1080px

>>35090603
Does it fire human beings?

>>35090603
>rocket motor

Several seconds of continuous recoil.

>>35080973
>>35080999

Whether or not the guy you're insulting is a motherfucker, your insult doesn't make any sense. I suggest going with a direct insult because you don't understand the english language.

File: SMLE_No1_MkIII.jpg (28KB, 740x230px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 740x230px

>>35096139
>Doesn't have a bolt swinging back and forth
That's why bolt-actions tend to have more recoil, as the whole thing is almost entirely static when it fires. The recoil comes from the gas being exhausted out of the muzzle and the reaction forces between the bolt and the bullet as the gas expands.

Having the bolt move as the gun is fired softens the recoil. Blowback guns have less recoil than bolt-actions, fucknugget.
Also bolt-actions tend to fire slightly larger calibres, obviously.

>>35097329
>I don't understand physics

You think the big walls they put up behind fa18 when they take off from a carrier help it take off faster don't you?

File: 638075044.jpg (352KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 1024x682px

>>35097764
Technically they do, as the jet blast doesn't maim the deck crew and the pilot doesn't have to be apprehended mid-takeoff. Without the shields the takeoff would take a lot longer.

>>35080736
Im with these guys, you should kys

>>35097737
Well then please do enlighten me how the AK 107 system somehow manages to eliminate felt recoil as the wikipedia page claims.

>>35097936
I dunno mate. I'm not a filthy Russian.

>>35097960
So you just made a completely irrelevant post just for the hell of it?

>>35080701
because men aren't pussies.

>>35097784
>Technically they do
Technically, they don't. The F/A-18's takeoff speed is restricted to the speed of the catapult.

File: ohbloodyhellnotagain.jpg (45KB, 520x406px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 520x406px

>>35097990
You didn't understand the joke.

>>35097936
As far as I can tell, they reduce the recoil by having a counterweight shift with the recoil. It then moves back once the bullet's gone and the entire thing is tuned so it all feels like one smooth push rather than a sharp jolt.

>>35097994
Double woosh

>>35098012
Shit. I took the bait.

File: Happy.jpg (21KB, 176x250px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 176x250px

>half the thread pedantic autists correcting everyone's physics
>other half set to maximum troll
>mfw
Never change /k/

>>35098005
The way i see it is that the counterweight is in effect kinda like reducing the bolt weight so that it still smooths out the recoil but doesn't throw the gun around like in a gun with a heavy bolt like the Chauchat, same effect could be achieved with an ultra light bolt but then you run into reliability problems.

>>35089304
Because fuck gun elevation

>>35097764
He's partially right but the phrasing is weird.

A recoilless rifle looses some muzzle velocity when compared to a comparable caliber gun. Traditional guns use pressure dynamic equations in addition to newtonian ones.

The wasted pressure does end up "disheveling the operator."

File: noose30n-1-web.jpg (30KB, 970x812px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 970x812px

>>35080736

>>35080736
Ah, but you can remove it from the user at least. The trick is that when you pull the trigger the shot is basically a rocket that happens to be on your shoulder. The recoil energy shoots out the back with the exhaust and the launcher is mostly left alone.

File: recoilless.png (142KB, 809x631px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 809x631px

>>35080701

I’ve always wondered why nobody developed turret mounted recoilless guns one light tanks?

As the gun is mounted on trunnions attached to the turret, it doesn’t need to be 100% recoilless and by venting most of the propellent gases out the front of the chamber, a much larger caliber weapon can be used on a small vehicle, while still enclosing the gun and crew inside an armored turret.

>>35080701

Recoilless is an excellent idea but its only useful in certain applications. The projectiles tend to be pretty light duty stuff even though they have better range than something like an RPG.

>>35080736
Look at the diagram.
Recoil is being generated but its not affecting the weapon itself, the result is things blowing out the back end of the weapon (that is the opposite reaction you're looking for).

With a typical weapon the thing pushed back is the weapon itself, not the exhaust gasses. In fact id expect it would be even more effective if you put something like buckshot in the back of the propellant cartridge, making the "thing being pushed back" more massive, thus allowing the projectile to have more force coming out.

> lets shoot a giant blast of buckshot backwards from the weapon, just to drive home the point you shouldnt be standing behind it.

>all these people telling others to kill themselves
Freaking reddit/10

Get out

File: 1349428831664.png (395KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 512x384px

>>35098807

>>35080701
The mechanical complexity of a fully automatic recoilless rifle would be much more than a modern combat rifle. I think you could build one that would cycle, but against a Kalashnikov, or even an armalite, the cost per unit would be incredible, and the firearm's weight and reliability would suffer.

>>35097936
See
>>35096139

Give a stern look at the gif and tell me what is going on.

>>35098698
You get a massive muzzle flash, lower velocity, compromised structural integrity near the base of the barrel, and no decrease in felt recoil because the gasses still vent forward. The reason a recoilless gun is recoilless is because the rear venting gasses have an equal and opposite momentum to the fired projectile, so they cancel it out.

>>35080701
Not even going to bother reading the shit show that im sure the rest of this thread has slowly become over the last ~2 days.

It's because of back blast and complexity. It simply wont work for most designs because the operator would be getting fucked by hot gasses and ejecta.

Also most guns you want to use for typical infantry use(for example) don't need that kind of recoil reduction. A soldier is better off with 400rnds of 5.56 than 60rnds of some sort of ungodly 20-30mm mini cannon rounds fired from a horribly unpleasant, difficult to use, expensive, and failure prone weapon

File: M22 Locust.jpg (65KB, 700x465px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 700x465px

>>35098880
> You get a massive muzzle flash,

No, as you don’t get a massive muzzle flash at the rear of a conventional recoilless gun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amsIt3Unbvo

> lower velocity,

No, the velocity would be the same.

> compromised structural integrity near the base of the barrel,

Most of the pressure is being vented, just a conventional recoilless rifle and you could make the chamber bit thicker if necessary, as it’s mounted in a turret and the minor additional weight wouldn’t matter.

> and no decrease in felt recoil because the gasses still vent forward.

No, while there would be X% recoil as opposed to 0% recoil with a conventional recoilless gun but as it would be mounted in the turret via trunnions, the turret could easily absorb this small amount of recoil.

The U.S. could have fielded the M22 Locust light airborne tank and M8 armored car with a 75mm recoilless gun instead of the useless-by-1944 37mm gun.

>>35097764
you know that does right? literally, why do all of the people that know "physics" forget this.

>>35099175
Not that anon, but how about instead of having that shitty design, have it like the Sturmtiger where it's very similar to a bore evacuator.

>>35099240
Referring to >>35098698

>>35099175
>0:45
>fuckheug fireball
>"You don't get a massive flash"

>>35099175
Literally everything in this post is wrong and shows complete ignorance of physics, firearm design, and common sense.

>Increase muzzle flash
The video you posted shows a huge flash at the rear

>Lower velocity
Having an extra avenue to escape lowers chamber pressure, which lowers muzzle velocity. This is the same in every recoilless rifle

> compromised structural integrity
What else do you call vents facing forward and leading directly to the chamber?

> no decrease in felt recoil
Recoilless rifles decrease recoil by letting the expanding gasses vent to the rear. If they all vent directly rearwards, you get no recoil. If there is some percentage not venting directly back, you gain recoil based on the angle and percentage. If, as in the case of >>35098698 ,
all the gas is vented forward, it's the same as if there were no vents at all. Except for the decrease in velocity of the projectile will mean less recoil than out of a standard barrel, but you could accomplish the same thing out of a reduced charge.

>>35099240
Why bother? Same recoil as a standard gun, but harder to build and with a lower muzzle velocity. You could accomplish the same thing firing a reduced charge through a standard barrel

>>35081974
that's almost crazy enough to potato.

File: Untitled.png (64KB, 806x246px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 806x246px

>>35098698
in that drawing the gas is still all pushing backward on the gun, it wouldn't diminish recoil. If you want it on a vehicle and still want the chamber near the crew (for loading I guess) it could be like the RT-20 with a longer tube >>35096528
pic related is what's happening

Vehicles that use recoiless guns usually just get a full length one and put the chamber at the back of the vehicle. Those vehicles aren't heavily armored so they want to shoot n scoot, making reloading a secondary task.

File: 24 - NQULSjm.jpg (13KB, 255x255px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 255x255px

>>35080736
You're a nigger who has nothing in your real life so you have to come shit post on /k/ to feel important right senpai, fucking end your life

File: 1485138662441.png (425KB, 486x495px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 486x495px

>>35081166
Wat?

>>35081058
You're inbred if that makes any sense to you.
>who is 'his?' (no mention of a male before)
>wife not implied to be mother
>shooting?

Anon's just mad he got cucked and cant into physics

>>35098043
Best bread today.

File: 1462549828390.png (119KB, 237x225px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 237x225px

>>35081166

File: IMG_5489.png (157KB, 680x510px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 680x510px

>>35098043
>half the threads tells people to stop being retarded
>the other half thinks they're trolling by purposely being retarded

File: 1504766995444.png (2MB, 1520x1126px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1520x1126px

>>35081166
Oh gee golly gosh why didn't we think of this

>>35080701
because some of use prefer to have more than a single-shot rifle?

>>35101462
I think someone once created a semi-automatic recoilless rifle but I never got confirmation on that.

In theory, you just need to put venting ports right behind the chamber in a standard blowback action but it's got to be more complicated than that.

>>35101298
I don't think their pretending to be stupid, I think they're actually that stupid.

I mean, nobody's gone political yet and that's trolling 101

File: cat-glad.png (92KB, 250x226px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 250x226px

>mfw some fucking /k/tard build some fully retarded "recoiless gun" using ideas from this thread and become news of the day under "corpse found with vaporized upper body and detached face plastered to the wall 20 meters away" headline

Wasn't the backblast an issue? You can't have a recoilless gun work in close quarters if it makes a backblast, else it'll fry you.

File: 75mm breach end.jpg (38KB, 500x449px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x449px

>>35099354
> > Increase muzzle flash
> The video you posted shows a huge flash at the rear

That’s hardly a “HUGE!” flash and in fact less than a conventional enclosed breech gun.

> > Lower velocity
> Having an extra avenue to escape lowers chamber pressure, which lowers muzzle velocity. This is the same in every recoilless rifle

My point was in response to >>35098880 who claimed a forward venting recoilless gun would somehow have a lower velocity then a reward venting recoilless gun, when both would have the same velocity.

In both designs, there is a loss of velocity that is accepted due to being a recoilless design.

> > compromised structural integrity
> What else do you call vents facing forward and leading directly to the chamber?

What do you call the open rear of a conventional recoilless gun? both designs use an enlarged chamber to decrease pressure and both vent the propellent gasses, one out the back and in the other, out the front.

> > while there would be X% recoil as opposed to 0% recoil
> Recoilless rifles decrease recoil by letting the expanding gasses vent to the rear.

They work by venting propellent gases, be they vented out the rear or out the front.

>>35080736
ACTUAL retard