Recoiless Firearms ?

haha Snake oil. You'd need some Star Trekish technology for something like this. Just keep in mind "equal and opposite reaction". Unless you're shooting both forward and backward, recoil will be in a shooters life until we use the term "personal teleportation device" regularly.
 
"The Recoilless Technology is substantially different and, the management team believe, far superior to recoil reduction or traditional recoilless technologies being researched elsewhere globally."

From their website, the italics are mine.

It seems to me they aren't even willing to claim that it is better... So...
 
For a firearm to be "recoilless" it would have to weigh so much that the recoil is not felt. IE a 7 pound 9MM. Beyond that like myshoulderissore said equal and opposite reaction. Sorry bro.
 
Erm...definitely sounds like marketing over practical application. From their proof of concept section:

"The first prototype was based on an adaptation of a framework of a 1911 .45 ACP semi-automatic pistol, using a .22 Magnum round, equivalent to a 9mm Luger round, and showed a substantial counter recoil force...To avoid damage to the RT components, the power of the test cartridges was scaled down to .22 Long Rifle (.22LR) calibre"

Seems like even if they have a decent concept, it would not be near the point that it would be functionally applied.

I would guess that they haven't thought through the scaling of their technology to calibers with recoil greater than .22(gee recoil reduction on a .22 wooo!). Take a look at the Kriss Super Vs, it takes a whole lot of extra real estate in the design to mitigate the perceived recoil. From what little information they have available it seems to me like they're trying to squeeze this extra stuff into relatively the same amount of space as a normal firearm.
 
The only recoiless I know of is the "75MM Recoiless" and it definatley has a lot of recoil. A lot of recoil is absorbed by hydraulics.
 
equal and opposite reaction

hi,

yes i think that "equal and opposite reaction" would be the answer for this problem .

maybe well get new products very soon !

:cool:
 
Recoil reduced guns do exist. Check out the new full auto shotgun. It uses an internal gas system to cut felt recoil by a strong amount.

I don't know about these though.
 
If I'm reading their diagrams correctly (their verbiage is pretty much useless in figuring out what they're doing), it looks like they're converting the rearward thrust into rotation...
 
...be that as it may, it's not recoil-less. Even blank rounds have "recoil", by pushing a gram or two of powder out of the barrel. Frankly, I don't think they've progressed any farther than companies like Knoxx with recoil reducing stocks. These guys just appear to be increasing recoil timeframe as well. This is an easy solution- as soon as they produce one, someone will go and shoot it. I doubt we will see it to fruition.

There's only three things you can do to reduce recoil force.

Reduce mass of projectile.

Increase mass of weapon/shooter (or negate it by allowing blow through, like a bazooka)

Increase timeframe of force application. (Knoxx camming-system)

You can bend local laws and regulations. You MUST abide by the laws of physics, it doesn't matter how much you WANT to break them. :D

I can't remember if someone posed this idea or not- one thing I wanted to try to mitigate recoil in an AK (since it wouldn't be so bad to chop up an upper gas tube) is to furnish a small weight that when fired, the gases not only push the carrier backward, it pushes the weight forward, and they must contact the back of their strokes at the same instant. This would in effect "artificially" increase weapon mass at that instant. but if it's out of time, it would make it chatter around crazily. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
What they're obviously talking about is perceived recoil.

Physics tells us that in general, what they're saying is impossible. Recoil exists. But if it's harnessed in such a manner to make it negligible to the shooter, then the gun is, in effect, recoilless.

What I think they're doing is trying to harness the recoil pulse and redirect it completely, or substantially, into a rotational force. If what they are trying to do works, then perceived recoil, the thrust back when you fire a gun, would be channeled into something that we wouldn't perceive as traditional recoil.

This is already done with artillery. The arrestor mechanisms channel the recoil into cylinders containing pneumatics, or springs, or a combination of the two. Yes, the barrel still recoils, but the carriage can stay largely in the same place.
 
I was just looking at their "drawings", as well. I'm not entirely sure how they plan on reducing felt recoil, without either making some moving component either heavy or slower-moving than the rest of the pistol. The problem I see is that they mention one of their test pistols is a 1911, which is (naturally) recoil operated. Unless drastic changes are made (who knows, maybe they did drastically change it) their "recoilless" design will make cycling a real problem, unless they set it up like a Desert Eagle's operating system, or like a rifle to where you could attempt to utilize the gas. Well, I have nothing against them - I hope it works, that would be pretty neat. Me myself, with my buddy's startup company (and this is what RTI appears to be, down to the letter) we'll make one that's modular for most pistols. :cool:
 
Recoil-shmecoil. Shooting a gun that doesn't recoil would be like drinking a shot of whiskey that had no kick. How do you know it's working if it doesn't smack you upside the head?;)
 
Obviously you hold your hand in front of the barrel when it's fired! At least that's one way but not recommended.

Some guns have hardly any "kick" to begin with. A typical .22 has negligible recoil unless you're especially sensitive. I often mention this but I have a better example. If you've ever fired something like a PPK in .380, it is surprising how much kick they have, even in the Beretta .380s. But the late and lamented Colt .380 Government Model, the recoil virtually disappears. I can't explain it but even with a locked breach, it seems like it ought to have more. At least, it never seemed like it had any to speak of when I owned one and I had two or three variations, including one with an allow frame. Never had one of the Mustang variations.

I don't think an AR-15 has any kick to speak of, either. However, I seem to recall there is a late development of the AK series that had an unusual arrangement of the gas piston or something like that all intended to reduce recoil. But I don't think it went anywhere, commercially speaking, because the world is flooded with the old ones.
 
If the recoil is redirected it's possible felt recoil could be dramatically reduced.

Like the French 75mm where the carriage stayed relatively still while the gun recoils.
If we had a pistol frame independent of the barreled action we could do something similar.

Does seem a bit complex for a small arms though.
 
No, a French 75 or a 105mm Howitizer are not recoiless by any means. The carraige doesn't move because the spades on the trail are dug into the ground but the tube certainly recoils. On most automatic pistols the barrel is independent of the frame. It recoils, along with the slide, usually, while the frame stays relatively still, the term relative varying with the weight of the frame, the power of the catridge and the strength holding the pistol.
 
Recoil... Really?

I don't see what all the fuss is about with attempting to recoil. Softening it up for a new shooter is fine, But I really don't see the big deal. I can shoot rifles/shotguns for some time before I start to get sore from the recoil. Sure recoil can affect accuracy if you're flinching in anticipation (particularly with pistols) but that's the SHOOTER's problem and bad technique, not the gun. Learn to shoot, and man up!

As for this recoil-less gun BS... Smoke and mirrors. Ditto to all who cited physics/equal and opposite reaction. Some people don't get that the laws of physics are absolute laws of the universe, and don't just step aside at our convenience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top