Why so few short-recoil rifles?

[The Wiry Irishman]

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.

What about a railed free-float tube?

 

[FIFTYGUY]

Wes Janson wrote:

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

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

Respectfully, I ask where you get your data from?

I've shot both Barretts and half a dozen different bolt-action .50 BMG rifles (and a Ma Deuce, FWIW). I didn't notice a substantial accuracy disadvantage with the Barretts. Using good ammo/components and matching them to the gun was more important (big surprise!).

Now, common sense tells me that with all those parts moving around, the Barrett *should* be less accurate - in general.

So please indulge me with some references!

BTW, thanks PercyShelley - I never realized that the ubiquitous Browning A-5 was long recoil! And the CSRG is definitely a notable example of why long-recoil battle rifles are rarely encountered!

 

[Nolo]

I believe the OP was talking about the Inertia Driven system of some of those new Benellis. Which is not used in combat because it's unreliable in weird orientations.

 

[Zak Smith]

Inertia-unlocked actions are usually not reliable when a lot of mass is added to the chassis/barrel.

-z

 

[PercyShelley]

What about a railed free-float tube?

Should work fine, although ideally the tube would be long enough to cover the entire barrel.

 

[Wes Janson]

Respectfully, I ask where you get your data from?

I've shot both Barretts and half a dozen different bolt-action .50 BMG rifles (and a Ma Deuce, FWIW). I didn't notice a substantial accuracy disadvantage with the Barretts. Using good ammo/components and matching them to the gun was more important (big surprise!).

Now, common sense tells me that with all those parts moving around, the Barrett *should* be less accurate - in general.

So please indulge me with some references!

The last figure I've heard for a record group from an M82A1 was 11 inches at a thousand yards. The world record for any .50 BMG is (or was last time I checked) 2.60 inches at a thousand. Granted, there hasn't been the same level of focus on the part of match shooters towards making them competitive, but that by itself should say something about the platform. Fundamentally, the barrel moves in relation to the scope mount. There is no possible concievable way that can be beneficial to accuracy; at best the effect on group size might be marginal. Most M82 shooters I've spoken with say to expect closer to 2 MOA with the rifle.

And it's worth noting that Barrett's own publication states something to the effect that the Marine Corps classifies the M107 as a "Special Application Scoped Rifle" because it's not accurate enough to be called a quote unquote "sniper rifle".

 

[Gewehr98]

That's because they're classified as Anti-Materiel Rifles...

Not Sniper Rifles.

You won't see a DoD category of Sniper Rifle in .50 BMG - period. The Judge Advocate's Group drove the classification of said rifles, and while procured and issued as Anti-Materiel Rifles, if the shooter just happens to take out a combatant with said round, that's ok, too.

11 inches at 1000 yards is still just a hair over 1 MOA. Not too shabby for an as-issued autoloading .50 BMG with standard ammo.