Talk:Recoilless rifle

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Agreed! Maury 22:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Physics 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Slower projectile 

message: How is the cartridge actually fired? I think would be an important contribution. J-stan 20:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Firing mechanism 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Davy Crockett "launcher" was issued in two sizes, the M-28 and the M-29 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recoilless Rifle and Recoilless Gun difference? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled question

message: The redirect 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)
thread_title:  "[[:SKZ]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]