🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov3.165350.27059@impmh.uucp> dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon) writes:

>Why can't a "recoilless" rifle simply be built by putting a spring
>between the back of the chamber/barrel assembly and the stock; the
>spring would soak up the momentum by compressing at the moment of
>firing, then release it over a much longer period (hence, with a
>much lower force, since delta(momentum) = force*time).

This is a good enough idea that it is in fact done on most larger
weapons in the artillery.  It is more complex and heavier however so
is not done on the typical rifle, shotgun or pistol.

>Of course, the barrel/chamber assembly should be fairly massive,
>in order to maximise the K.E. transferred to the bullet.

Therein lies the problem for something like an antitank weapon.
Even the M72 light antitank weapon (very effective against an
armored personnel carrier but rather wimpy to use against a real
tank) throws a rather massive projectile.  An enclosed chamber
weapon to throw that projectile would be impractical for a soldier 
to carry.  The 106mm recoiless rifle throws a projectile comparable
to that of a 4 inch morter (albeit at a lower velocity).  If you try
to use an enclosed chamber for that projectile you need a weapon so
massive that it becomes artillery, not infantry.  (Or you must make
it a morter and forego the advantages of a low trajectory.)  The 
advantage of the recoiless rifle is that it is light enough for a 
crew of infantrymen to handle.  You don't need the heavy vehicle 
support required by artillery, and you get the mobility advantage of
infantry.