Why so few short-recoil rifles?

Status
Not open for further replies.
cluttonfred

cluttonfred

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
1,322
Location
World traveler
The Stoeger web site gives a great graphic explanation of what they call Inertia Drive, which I think is more commonly called short-recoil operation. It offers a simple and reliable action, expecially when light weight and reliablity are at a premium, with the added bonus of lower felt recoil.

It seems to me that there would be advantages to this system in battle rifles, for example, where the factors above might outweigh match-grade accuracy concerns. Yet the only short-recoil battle rifle I can think of that was made in quantity was the Johnson Rifle (and on Max P.'s site here), a qualified success at best. Also, don't miss the great Johnson range test at The Box o' Truth web site.

I would think short-recoil operation would make a M14- or FAL-type rifle in 7.62mm NATO much easier control on full auto, for example. It would even help make a lighter and even more controllable 5.56 mm rifle or carbine.

Does anyone know of any other successful short-recoil battle or assault rifles, or have any thoughts on why short-recoil operation isn't used more?

Cheers,

Matthew

CORRECTION: There are short-recoil operated rifles in current U.S. military service, but the .50 BMG Barret sniper rifles (and even 25mm payload rifle - read cannon round) are a bit awkward for close combat. ;-)
 
Yet the only short-recoil battle rifle I can think of that was made in quantity was the Johnson Rifle (and on Max P.'s site here), a qualified success at best.
Click to expand...

Isn't the M1 Carbine a short-recoil design?
 
That Wiki article is terrible because its definitions of "short recoil" and "long recoil" are most applicable to handguns, but then throws in the confusion with the inertia system and the Auto-5.

The vast majority of autoloading rifles have fixed barrels which excludes them by definition from the wiki article's "short" and "long recoil". The fixed barrel has obvious advantages for a rifle because of accuracy.

You are likely to find some reciprocating barrel designs when you start looking at belt-fed machineguns.

In fixed-barrel semi-auto rifle actions, a distinction that is often made is short-stroke vs. long-stroke piston, which describes if the piston reciprocates fully or has a short stroke which gives the bolt carrier a shove.

-z
 
Zouave Rifle, the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine both use short-stroke gas piston operation, IIRC, so not recoil at all.

Zak Smith, I agree it's not the best, but we are talking about recoil operation in which the barrel does recoil (even if just couple of millimeters) prior to unlocking the breech. AFAIK, short- or long-recoil both involve the barrel moving, in short recoil just a little bit and in long recoil the breech actually moves past the cartridge. At least that's my understanding.

So to expand on your description, with short recoil the barrel gives the bolt a shove while with long recoil it carries the bolt all the way past the waiting cartridge.
 
Recoil-operated systems have been used and have the advantage of having no gas system to deal with.

BUT, and this but is a really big Rosanne butt, it requires the barrel to move. This fundamentally precludes using a bayonet or any other barrel-mounted device such as a bipod or grenade launcher. The reason is the more you hang off the barrel, the slower it works and so, can cause feeding failures. This is why the Johnson used such a pathetic bayonet and why all A-5 type shotguns were not used in combat, because they could not have a bayonet mounted. They were reserved for training or security jobs in riot configuration.

Also, the barrel must be exposed or, at the very least, allowed free movement within a channel. This either causes the barrel to be easily damaged OR it causes needless weight in the forend.

In the end, while there have been recoil-operated rifles, they are not particularly suitable for combat. Now, light or GP machineguns are another matter and beyond my scope. They can easily have a purpose because of the nature of mounting them, the lack of barrel mountings, plus the ability to produce a perforated shroud for the barrel.

Ash
 
I would think short-recoil operation would make a M14- or FAL-type rifle in 7.62mm NATO much easier control on full auto, for example.
Click to expand...
When we need full auto fire, we use a bipod- or tripod-mounted machinegun. Full auto fire from hand-held weapons is tactically useless.
 
And if you think a gas-gun kicks off target on full auto, wait till you get a 3 pound barrel slamming back and forth at 650 RPM!

rcmodel
 
The M2 .50cal machinegun is a perfect example of having a recipicating barrel, it moves a few inches during the operation of the weapon.

Internally you have three major components, the bolt and the bolt carrier that is in two parts that lock together with a toggle type lever action that allows them to move together and apart alittle bit during the operation. the one part has the barrel threaded dirrectly into it, with the other part behind it and the bolt traveling in/above them. I don't have my technical manual handy and my memory is a bit shoddy when it comes to names so I'm sure what the actually names are for everything, but I can picture it all in my head how it works.
 
The new AN-94 uses what appears to be a short recoil system. There is a mounting bar below the barrel that supports it an gives a place to mount grenade launchers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN-94

Short recoil designs tend to have more moving parts and have pretty much been replaced by gas operation.
 
Ash, just a note of clarification here...

The British used the Browning autoloading shotgun (that A5) in jungle fighting, against the Commies in Malaysia and the Indonesians in Borneo, in the '50s - '60s timeframe. It may only have been the SAS that used them, but they were popular for anti-ambush and in springing an ambush. And these were people who could have been using the Stirling subgun.

Bart Noir
Who thinks a Gurkha fighting with an semiauto shotgun ought to intimidate the enemy. A spray of shot until he gets in kukri range.....
 
The remington models 8 & 81 are/were recoil operated, but they were only strong enough for low pressure cartridges like the 35 rem and 30-30 win.
 
I doubt they were ever considered for military issue, although the Army did buy some to use in exercises to see how semiauto infantry rifles would affect small unit tactics. Hatcher shows a picture of one with peep sight and barrel band for military sling attachment.

There were a lot of M1 carbines made before they decided you needed a bayonet for it, changed the spec and retrofitted the inventory.
 
The M1 carbine was initially not a main combat weapon, though, and so omitting a bayo made sense. However, when so many were being used in direct combat by soldiers and not support personnel, it made sense to convert them. That is exactly why the riot Remington 11's and Savage 720's didn't have bayonets (beyond being unsuited to bayonet use) security guards were not expected to enter into combat as a primary role.

Ash
 
Last edited:
The remington models 8 & 81 are/were recoil operated, but they were only strong enough for low pressure cartridges like the 35 rem and 30-30 win.
Click to expand...

Actually, they were not chambered in .30-30 win but .30 rem, which is basically .30-30 win with the rim removed. Rim=bad for box magazines.
 
Quote:
The remington models 8 & 81 are/were recoil operated, but they were only strong enough for low pressure cartridges like the 35 rem and 30-30 win.

Actually, they were not chambered in .30-30 win but .30 rem, which is basically .30-30 win with the rim removed. Rim=bad for box magazines.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, the Model 81 was available chambered for .300 Savage, which was originally intended as a sort-of short action/lever action equivalent to the .30-03 (at least that's what Ken Waters wrote about the cartridge's origins in his Pet Loads column about it), which'd mean capability of handling a bit more pressure than .25, .30, .32 and .35 Remingtons...
 
Don't forget the M82/M107 Barrett rifles are short-recoil and in current use.
Of course, there are no bayonets for them...

A better question would be: how many LONG-recoil small arms can you name?
 
Browning auto-5, and anything based on them plus the Chauchat.

Perhaps some experienced .50 shooters can chime in; how much does the Barrett's short-recoil system help in reducing the peak recoil?
 
The AN-94's barrel along with the entire receiver group does recoil, but the action of the bolt and pulley system is gas operated. At least that's what I understand from Mr. Popenker's page on the matter.
 
Ditto on the long-stroke Remington Model 8...

I've got a couple of them, a Model 8 in .32 Remington, and a Model 81 in .300 Savage. I'd not call the latter a low-pressure cartridge by any stretch of the imagination, because it's closer to the .308 Winchester in that respect.

Gotta love the genius that was John Moses Browning, though. :D

rem8-3.gif
 
Don't forget the M82/M107 Barrett rifles are short-recoil and in current use.
Of course, there are no bayonets for them...
Click to expand...

And they're also not really noted for their accuracy (in comparison to bolt-action alternatives).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
lack of recoil-operated semi rifles?... why?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
145
Views
11K
barnbwt
barnbwt
C
  • Locked
Recoil Operated Rifle... why not?
2
Replies
40
Views
9K
Vaarok
V
L
  • Locked
Best Warfighter Rifle
2 3 4 5
Replies
109
Views
5K
Robert
Robert
C
  • Locked
Why are there not that many recoil operated military rifles?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
General Geoff
General Geoff
chute2thrill
  • Locked
Benelli semi-auto rifle...
Replies
7
Views
1K
chute2thrill
chute2thrill
Back
Top