Do recoilless rifles have recoil?

G

gringojosh

New member
Based on what I've read, they have little to no recoil. However, it's hard for me to imagine something similar to a rocket launcher that didn't recoil. Has anyone ever shot one of these things? What is it like?
 
Yes, I have and they have no recoil at all due to the fact that the rear is open and there is nothing for the gases to push against to cause recoil. It all just blasts out the rear of the weapon. There is something like a 15-25 meter kill zone to the rear so you always have to be aware of where you are when you are getting ready to shoot so you don't kill your own guys.
 
Slappy's right. No recoil at all. As I recall, firing one in the late '70s I was amazed at how the rifle seemed to lift from my shoulder. Just a slight lift and the warhead was gone. He's right too about the backblast area.

I've seen movies where the guy shoots a recoilless rifle (or a LAW rocket) from a helicopter and thinking how quickly that would bring down the bird, not to mention kill the guys behind him in the chopper.
 
Of course there's recoil.

It's just not applied to the gun (a miniscule amount is).

Newton's third law demands it.

Damn. Now I want Fig Newtons.
 
I've seen movies where the guy shoots a recoilless rifle...
Click to expand...
Dennis, to the myths of the old movies, the current generation has to factor in the "reality" of video games. I took my grandson to the range for the first time last week -- he was totally amazed by the noise level of real guns.
 
Hey Mike, I know what you mean, but wouldn't you say there was an "equal and opposite reaction", but that the e-a-o reaction just didn't come in the form of rifle recoil?

-cls
 
Of course there's recoil.
Click to expand...
Going to have to argue the point, since recoil is the force transferred though the weapon to the ground by way of your body, on a recoilless rifle, there is a reaction of hot gases blowing out the back end, since none of it is transferred to ground by way of the shooters body, there is no recoil.

Recoil: to spring or fly back, as in consequence of force of impact or the force of the discharge, as a firearm.
Since there is nothing for the rearward pressure to impact upon, there is no recoil, only reaction.
 
I guess it would matter how you define recoil, but there certainly is an opposite force vector involved. Just like you can part water when you dive into a pool, above a certain speed it would be more like hitting a solid. The force of the rocket motor is pushing against the air fast enough that it propels the missile in the opposite direction. Whatever force it takes to move the missile forward is being exerted backward by the backblast. In a closed breech system, that force is exerted against the breech and is felt as recoil. Some guns, like the Browning A5 shotgun have a recoil operated system. The whole barrel moves backward when the gun is fired and cycles the action. This is often seen on artillery guns. Perhaps those designs are using the greater mass of the whole assembly to absorb some of the recoil energy, just a guess on my part.
 
As I said, there's recoil, only in the case of a recoillless rifle the recoil is imparted both into the gasses exiting the rear of the gun and the projectile exiting the front.

Think of it this way... I think this is a correct analogy....

Two identical people are standing on a frictionless surface, palm to palm.

One person pushes off. They'll both move. In essence, both recoil away from the point at which the force is exerted.
 
"Since there is nothing for the rearward pressure to impact upon"

Incorrect.

The rearward pressure acts both on itself AND against standard atmospheric pressure -- the air.
 
Getting back down to earth.

There is no recoil you have to deal with. That's what counts, not force vectors here there and fig newton's laws of notoneum.

Arggghhhhhhhhhhh
 
I was an M67 gunner in VN and I've also fired the M40A1 quite a bit back in the day. There certainly is no felt recoil. The high velocity gas out the rear somehow equals the weight and velocity recoil impulse of the round going down range. I've read that they are extremely inefficient as far as the ammount of propelent they burn for velocity and weight of throw compared to conventional tubes, but I guess you don't get something for nothing. They are light for their power and they can be carried (M67) or light vehicle mounted (M40A1) unlike their conventional brethren.

As Slappy notes, you definately want to watch your back blast area before touching off one. You can easily kill a man who is standing behind one.

You also want double ear protection when firing them. They are louder than even a Barret 50 cal. Probably one of the reasons I have tinitus.

The Gustav 84mm (RAWS) is the current recoiless weapon used by SOF forces in the US Army as well as numerous other countries. It enjoys serveral types of warheads.

Here I am with my son circa late 80s shooting the M40A1. The weapon on top of the main tube is a .50 cal spotting rifle. I think that it is actually more fun to fire than the main tube.

YTC-600-80.jpg
 
Last edited:
You are missing my point. What you are describing is reaction not recoil. In order for it to be recoil, it has to move the gun backwards against the force of the projectile coming out the front. If there is no rearward action of the weapon itself it cannot be called recoil. It is defined as back blast. If you don't like the definition of recoil I posted from Webster, look up your own, it won't change the facts any. I understand what you are saying but you cannot define it as recoil.
I trained on the M67 Recoilless Rifle in the Mid to late '70s and there is no recoil, Felt or otherwise.
Newton's third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.(wikipedia)
Click to expand...
In order for it to be called recoil, that reaction has to actually react upon the weapon that is causing the initial action. In the case of a recoilles rifle it is just reacting against the atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
The Venturi Tube is the formal term I saw applied to the mechanism. Never actually fired one, saw them fired, they were the battalion antitank weapon when I served in a mech battalion in the National Guard 1977-1981. They were LOUD!
 
Slappy,

I had someone I know who's a physicist take a look at my posts, and he said about the only thing I got right was the spelling of Newton's name. :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top