Talk:Recoilless rifle

Removed
I removed the part It was undoubtedly the most destructive man-portable weapon ever devised. from the section about the Davy Crockett nuclear device since it is plain out wrong. Many other man-portable weapons with equal or more destructive power have been devised; viruses are a good example. The Special Atomic Demolition Munition SADM nuclear device, also man portable, had a maximum yield four times as large. 217.208.71.65 3 July 2005 07:53 (UTC)


 * Actually the SADM is almost certainly the same warhead as the Davy Crockett. Maury 16:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Davy Crockett (nuclear device) and Special Atomic Demolition Munition, both used the dial-a-yeild W54 warhead, however the Davy Crockett was limited to .2kt rather than the 1kt in the SADM, most likely due to the fact that it's kind of a bad idea to fire a big nuke from a gun with a 2 to 4 klick range. The Davy Crockett probably stands as the most powerful man-portable projectile weapon ever fielded.  Granted, given the size and weight of the warhead, plus propellant, gun tube, and propellant, it was probalby barely man-portable for the crew of 3-5.  scot 21:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I added some info about Soviet DRP development. I wonder if Germans were in any way influenced by them? Anyone have info about design history of Panzerabwehrwerfer 7.5? --Mikoyan21 12:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not at all knowledgeable in the field but, reading the introductory paragraph, oughtn't "and all are often called recoilless guns" logically read "and all are often called recoilless rifles"?--80.229.8.165 20:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed! Maury 22:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Physics
However at firing instead of all the propellant blast driving the projectile forward a large portion is directed backwards in the opposite direction.

I wasn't happy with this explanation of the physics. I tried to write a slightly more detailed explanation. If it makes sense, can we incorporate it into the main article:

''In a normal gun, the reverse momentum (equal and opposite to the forward momentum given to the projectile) is transferred to the body of the gun. In a recoilless rifle, the explosive gases are allowed to escape out the back of the gun, thereby avoiding this transfer of momentum. Due to their relative masses, far more kinetic energy is imparted to the explosive gases in a recoilless rifle compared to that imparted to the body of a conventional gun. This means that recoilless rifles require a more powerful charge to achieve the same muzzle velocity.'' 220.237.34.36 01:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"There is still no reference as to why/how the projectile gains momentum in the first place! The explanation of how the projectile gains momentum is important, also exactly how much extra propellant is needed, I remember reading somewher that is was 2/3 again as much propellant as a conventional gun with a similar performance needed." According to the consrvation of momentum the momentum of the escaping gases would have to be equal to the momentum of the projectile." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.67.71 (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox
This article is getting big and I was wondering if anyone more experienced on the subject could make an infobox using the Weapon Infobox. Doing this would probally earn the article a "B" rating on the quality scale. Cheif Captain 23:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Infobox templates are more for specific weapons, this article has more in common with "howitzer" or "rifle". GraemeLeggett 10:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Slower projectile
wouldnt the projectile go much slower since most of the gasses are going out the back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.164.85 (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Firing mechanism
How is the cartridge actually fired? I think would be an important contribution. J-stan 20:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It varies from weapon to weapon; in most, there's a firing mechanism that strikes a primer at the back of the case in the normal method for mechanically ignited single-piece artillery ammunition. Georgewilliamherbert 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
Is the word in the opening paragrah supposed to be "practical" or "impractical"? Bensci54 (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

and why does reading the opening paragraph feel like a know-it-all gun nut is sneering at me? "TECHNICALLY, ...." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.214.141 (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The opening paragraph should read: "A recoilless rifle (RCLR), or recoilless gun, is a lightweight weapon that fires a heavier projectile than would otherwise be practical to fire from a weapon of comparable size. Devices that use a rifled barrel are recoilless rifles, while smoothbore variants are recoilless guns. This distinction is often lost, and both are often referred to as recoilless rifles.[1]"

^ Julio S. Guzmán, Las Armas Modernas de Infantería, Abril de 1953" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.215.61 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Current use?
The article says these weapons are still in use by the US National Park Service. Is there a source for this? I was a US National Forest Service Snow Ranger at one time and know that the Forest Service has used them for avalanche control, but I'm not aware that they were ever used by the Park Service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corsair1944 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 27 December 2010‎ (UTC)

The Davy Crockett "launcher" was issued in two sizes, the M-28 and the M-29
Example: An M-29 Davy Crockett launcher was called the M-29 regardless of whether, after being set up, there was no round attached, or a dummy round attached, or the M-388 W-54 nuclear warhead attached. Both the M-28 & M-29 were recoilless guns. . . they had smooth bore, not rifled, tubes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.218.248 (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Recoilless Rifle and Recoilless Gun difference?
Shouldn't we reference the difference between a recoilless rifle which has a rifled bore and a recoilless gun which is smooth-bored? (If that is the correct terminology) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.90.84 (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Untitled question
I don't get why this part is included: [In the case of single-shot recoilless weapons such as the Panzerfaust or AT4, the device is externally almost identical in design to a single-shot rocket launcher: the key difference is that the launch tube is a gun that launches the projectile using a pre-loaded powder charge, not a hollow tube. Weapons of this type can either encase their projectile inside the disposable gun tube, or mount it on the muzzle: the latter allows the launching of an above-caliber projectile. Like single shot rocket launchers, the need to only survive a single firing means that single-shot recoilless weapons can be made from relatively flimsy and therefore very light materials, such as fiberglass. Recoilless gun launch systems are often used to provide the initial thrust for man-portable weapons firing rocket-powered projectiles: examples include the RPG-7, Panzerfaust 3 and MATADOR.]

I think someone misunderstood "recoilless rifle" as a function of recoil measure rather than a technical description of a weapon type because it went off topic into antitank rockets rather than recoilless rifles. Just because a rocket is low recoil does not make it a recoilless rifle and does not even make sense to compare since one is a rocket which tends to already have low recoil while the other is basically a small cannon which does need to be recoil compensated to me manportable. I recommend removal of this section due to "Off Topic".

220.255.62.83 (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. These weapons use a gunpowder propelling charge to launch their projectiles, with the sustainer rocket motors igniting after they have travelled a set distance. Indeed, when firing its antipersonnel round (which has no rocket motor), the RPG-7 functionally is a recoilless gun. Bones Jones (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"SKZ" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SKZ&redirect=no SKZ] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Redstar0005 talk to me! 02:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)