Does a recoilless rifle cause more of a concussion? My understanding of them is that the only difference is that there’s some give between the receiver and frame (probably not using the correct terms, but the bit that holds the shell when the bullet is fired can move relative to the bit that you hold on to to absorb the force).
Or is it because it’s easier to sustain fire when you don’t have to deal with recoil, so their brains deal with a higher volume of the same thing?
If I remember correctly it’s from a combination of overpressure when the projectile initially fires and the under pressure that happens when the projectile leaves the barrel.
The main problem is that it’s a shoulder fired weapon with a 10lb projectile. You can fire a Gustaf a couple times, but if you’re doing more than a couple it’s gonna bang you up.
Oh 10lb projectile, that makes sense, I thought you were talking about recoilless assault rifles. Yeah, any explosion that can move something that big wouldn’t surprise me having negative effects on anyone close enough to feel it in their chest. Same goes for artillery, tank cannons, or those big naval guns. Even if they aren’t holding them directly, they are going off pretty close to people operating them (actually I’m not sure about the naval ones, pretty sure they are fired by wire from the bridge or something but dunno if they still need people to load them or if that’s all automated now).
I thought you were talking about recoilless assault rifles.
Ah, lol. I forgot that people had made somewhat functional recoilless in small arms.
Yeah, I was speaking mainly about the Gustaf gun which has been giving people tbi for nearly a hundred years now. It’s basically the Browning M2 of the antitank world, but it gives you brain damage.
Still a super efficient weapons platform if you discount the brain damage, which like a hundred governments have agreed is a pretty cool idea.
Does a recoilless rifle cause more of a concussion? My understanding of them is that the only difference is that there’s some give between the receiver and frame (probably not using the correct terms, but the bit that holds the shell when the bullet is fired can move relative to the bit that you hold on to to absorb the force).
Or is it because it’s easier to sustain fire when you don’t have to deal with recoil, so their brains deal with a higher volume of the same thing?
If I remember correctly it’s from a combination of overpressure when the projectile initially fires and the under pressure that happens when the projectile leaves the barrel.
The main problem is that it’s a shoulder fired weapon with a 10lb projectile. You can fire a Gustaf a couple times, but if you’re doing more than a couple it’s gonna bang you up.
Oh 10lb projectile, that makes sense, I thought you were talking about recoilless assault rifles. Yeah, any explosion that can move something that big wouldn’t surprise me having negative effects on anyone close enough to feel it in their chest. Same goes for artillery, tank cannons, or those big naval guns. Even if they aren’t holding them directly, they are going off pretty close to people operating them (actually I’m not sure about the naval ones, pretty sure they are fired by wire from the bridge or something but dunno if they still need people to load them or if that’s all automated now).
Ah, lol. I forgot that people had made somewhat functional recoilless in small arms.
Yeah, I was speaking mainly about the Gustaf gun which has been giving people tbi for nearly a hundred years now. It’s basically the Browning M2 of the antitank world, but it gives you brain damage.
Still a super efficient weapons platform if you discount the brain damage, which like a hundred governments have agreed is a pretty cool idea.