Recoilless revolver concept

[Gabe]

I am thinking about the recoilless antitank rifles and I'm thinking why not recoiless revolvers. The way the rifles worked was they they perforated the case with tiny holes that allowed a portion of expanding gases to blowout the back and counteracted recoil.

I think this can be done with revolers also. There would have to be a way to direct the gases out without blowing it into the shooters face. Possibily a cut out in the cylinder would do the trick. Just think if you could shoot the equivalent of 44 magnums with the recoil of a 22.

 

[WheelMan]

If I'm not mistaken many of those recoilless rifles used a rocket and not a ballistic shell proper. Remember to get true recoillessness you'd have to have gas escaping rewards that has the same momentum as the gas and projectile leaving the barrel (you can see why a rocket makes this easier).

If that reward escaping gas can't go straight back (like it did with a RR) then the reward momentum component of the gas stream has to equal the muzzle blast/projectile momentum, which means the total rearward momentum has to be greater than the forward, much much greater if the rearward projected gas has to go more sideways that rearward (at it almost surely would)

So you'd need much greater powder charges to get the velocity you're used to with a regular revolver.


A muzzle brake gets around many of these problems, it uses gas that's already done it's job so there's little to no velocity loss and it put the escaping gas at the end of the barrel as opposed to in your face, not to mention that gas is much lower pressure/temperature than gas straight from the cartridge.

 

[Onty]

I am afraid that this is “mission impossibleâ€. Yes, you could get significant recoil reduction with muzzle break directing gasses backward, even without gasses going directly to your face. But, the blast will be greatly increased. Several years ago Bowen made 450 Supermagnum (458 Winchester Magnum, 1.6†long case on 357 Maximum Blackhawk frame + Bisley grip, trigger, hammer) and Ross Seyfried tested it, describing effect of its muzzle brake (with holes drilled perpendicularly regarding barrel axis, upper half, next to front sight) as “the pain on the face skin†with “lighter†300 and 350 grain bullets. Could you imagine what kind of the blast will be created with holes or openings pointing backward? While i was in the army (artillery) most of the folks didn’t have any ear protection and one even end up in hospital with “balancing giros†knocked off. It took him months to recover and regain sense of balance so he could walk on his own again. Regards, Onty.

 

[Quartus]

If I'm not mistaken many of those recoilless rifles used a rocket and not a ballistic shell proper.

You are mistaken, sir. Recoiless rifles are true rifles, using a true ballistic projectile.

Remember to get true recoillessness you'd have to have gas escaping rewards that has the same momentum as the gas and projectile leaving the barrel

Absolutely right. The backblast from a 106mm recoilless rifle will blow a man apart.

I think the backblast from a .44 mag would be very nasty. Remember that you'd have to greatly increase the powder charge to get decent velocity, since most of your blast is going out the back door.


Hey, Onty, I just noticed you're new here. Welcome aboard! I was born in your neck of the woods - Kingston, to be exact.

 

[Quartus]

Some info on RRs...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/recoilless_rifle



A couple of pics and a good description of various anti-tank shells.

http://www.mst2-vietnam.info/Stoner_ordnance_notes/stonerhtml/RECOILLESS_RIFLE.htm

 

[Gabe]

Well thanks for the input everyone. I can see this could be difficult to achieve.

 

[Traveler]

Such an item would be lethal to those next to the shooter as well as those in front. With advances in energy storage systems EMP will become more practical than todays contained expolsions.

 

[snubby]

When Taurus put porting on its revolvers, many on this board were incensed at the concept (I actually like the porting on my 617T). Doubt anything more "recoilless" would go over too well.

 

[Jim K]

One technique the army used was to mount a 106mm recoilless rifle on a jeep. Instructions were to "shoot and scoot" because the backblast from the 106 told everyone in the vicinty exactly where you were and if you stuck around a minute or two a Soviet 122 SP would clean your clock from 20 miles out.

Another bright idea was mounting a TOW missile on a jeep. Same problem, but worse, since the poor TOW op had to stick around and guide the thing until it hit, which reduced the "scoot" time to the vanishing point. Of course, they never told the TOW people in training that they were considered rather expendable.

Jim

 

[Hutch]

Hijack alert

from one of the articles noted above

. A one-shot hit with the 106mm was imperative, because the back blast from the breech extended in a cone-shaped fan 75 yards deep and 150 yards wide.

Madre de Dios!!! I can't imagine they'd be of much use at all. "Now, y'all clear out, 'cause Ah'm about to touch off ol' Snort."

 

[Quartus]

That was pretty much it, Hutch. You had to be VERY sure your backblast area was clear of friendlies.

Remember the scene in Red Dawn where the Russian Colonel gets fried by the exhaust from the RPG? Heh heh heh. Well, backblast from a Recoiless Rifle is much worse.

Same problem, but worse, since the poor TOW op had to stick around and guide the thing until it hit, which reduced the "scoot" time to the vanishing point. Of course, they never told the TOW people in training that they were considered rather expendable.

Hey! I WAS one of those TOW people!


Yeah, we knew. 16 seconds flight time at max range. That's a loooooong time when people are shooting. But I never thought the blast signature was nearly as obvious as it was made out to be. NOTHING like a recoilless riflle.