I have recently read an article about a gun called the KRISS KARD, it will have a weighted barrel that will allow the gun to be shot with little to no recoil at all. And I would like to hear your thoughts about this article
A recoiless gun?
- Thread starter videogamejunkie77
- Start date
Recommended Videos
can we see this article please until then i cant give a real opinion on it but having no recoil can be good for a full automatic weapon
How many foot pounds of force does it put out?
Is it a handgun or machine gun?
These questions are left unanswered to this constant question asker..now i humbly request you either provide more info or at least provide a link to said article with pictures attached please.
Is it a handgun or machine gun?
These questions are left unanswered to this constant question asker..now i humbly request you either provide more info or at least provide a link to said article with pictures attached please.
The weighted barrel prevents some of the recoil from pushing the barrel up. It does nothing to prevent the entire gun from being pushed back into your shoulder. This is all to add accuracy to the shoots proceeding the first one. Besides recoil isn't much period until you start getting into the really big rifle cartridges.marter said:
what manaman said. Apparently OP's gun is a pistol, and looks heavy as hell. I perfer my P226 (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/04/16/the-kriss-kard-new-pistol-from-tdi/)
Weapon with little recoil:
Recoilless 'Gun' (Rifle)
As for the pistol... bah. May be recoilless, but its heavy.
Recoilless 'Gun' (Rifle)
As for the pistol... bah. May be recoilless, but its heavy.
I remember watching something on Future Weapons a little while back...
A nifty smg, with some sort of triangle that's used to dissipate recoil. May have been a Kriss or something, I can't remember the name.
Any who,It was nifty, though looked difficult to replicate that technology, in say a LMG.
A nifty smg, with some sort of triangle that's used to dissipate recoil. May have been a Kriss or something, I can't remember the name.
Any who,It was nifty, though looked difficult to replicate that technology, in say a LMG.
Well unfortunately, the Recoilless Rifles are not a man-portable weapon system, they are vehicle mounted or crew served. One good example is in the movie Blackhawk Down.
Unfortunately though, if you think of the physics behind trying to make a truly "recoilless rifle" that infantry can carry, unless the round launches with zero friction in the barrel and it launches without actually having to deal with "equal and opposite reaction" (I.E. the brass being forced backwards into the bolt, reloading the weapon and propelling the round the other direction), there will always be recoil. If you make the weapon heavier, yes you succeed in increasing the amount of energy necessary to produce recoil, but your body (or whatever is carrying the weapon) has to use more energy to carry it, which rapidly leads to shaking hands, sagging arms, and decreased accuracy in general. This is why the Military M-16's are significantly lighter than competition AR-15's (civilian M-16's), because even though the recoil will be lower with a heavier rifle, you need to carry that thing FOREVER. This is why vehicle mounted weapons (see: M-2 Ma Deuce .50 Caliber machine gun) are heavier than necessary, because a Humvee or a tank can handle the extra weight which will decrease recoil for the gunner.
So yeah, the physics of a "recoilless rifle" with modern technology still does not work with traditional bullet technology.
Unfortunately though, if you think of the physics behind trying to make a truly "recoilless rifle" that infantry can carry, unless the round launches with zero friction in the barrel and it launches without actually having to deal with "equal and opposite reaction" (I.E. the brass being forced backwards into the bolt, reloading the weapon and propelling the round the other direction), there will always be recoil. If you make the weapon heavier, yes you succeed in increasing the amount of energy necessary to produce recoil, but your body (or whatever is carrying the weapon) has to use more energy to carry it, which rapidly leads to shaking hands, sagging arms, and decreased accuracy in general. This is why the Military M-16's are significantly lighter than competition AR-15's (civilian M-16's), because even though the recoil will be lower with a heavier rifle, you need to carry that thing FOREVER. This is why vehicle mounted weapons (see: M-2 Ma Deuce .50 Caliber machine gun) are heavier than necessary, because a Humvee or a tank can handle the extra weight which will decrease recoil for the gunner.
So yeah, the physics of a "recoilless rifle" with modern technology still does not work with traditional bullet technology.
A true "recoilless rifle" is very similar to a rocket launcher, with a few notable differences, such as bullet compared to a fin stabilized missile.
But managing recoil is a big concern with weapons, for obvious reasons.
But managing recoil is a big concern with weapons, for obvious reasons.
Did anyone see the electric gun? It seems more practical than this, and it has little to no recoil as well.
I remember hearing about a gun that shot a shelf propelled bullet that had little to no recoil, problem was that the barrel was too short and sometimes the mini rocket bullet would not achieve sufficient speed and just drop to the ground. Literally useless at short range too.