Need suggestions for new concept of rifle mechanism

[ved]

can a gun be created with no recoil cause i just made something[actually on paper] which i'm thinking it has no recoil and one more mechanism in which the gun's recoil is is in forward direction .you're all experts here so please tell me its problems don't judge drawing it is just a basic concept.




*feeding is not a concern .it is recoil operated the as in the picture the bottom one is main bolt yes the black one is bolt which picks the bullet from magazine to barrel.after that the hammer strikes the bolt the recoil sends the bolt back,the same energy gets transfer to upper bolt [not the actual bolt] they both[bolts] strikes at same time but in opposite directions killing each other's force so that net recoil/force should be zero.


*If the upper bolt strikes before the lower bolt and lower bolt does not strikes ,the whole force gets transfers to the upper bolt which moves and strikes forward ,creates the forward recoil and throws the rifle forward instead of back.


just tell me its major problems and thanks in advance.

 

[Jim K]

It is really an unlocked blowback. The change of direction of the force is irrelevant. The upper bolt does have an effect but the same as if the mass of that bolt were simply added to the lower one (the minor friction involved can be ignored). I suggest you not try it with a powerful cartridge.

Jim

 

[CapnMac]

Interesting idea, basically creating a linear flywheel of sorts.

However, the size of the gear needed to accelerate the anti-recoil mass would have to be significantly larger.

Lets presume some things, like that the firing bolt is 250grams and the round is launching at 300m/s. In just one millisecond (0.001 seconds) the firing bolt "wants' to back up 0.3m, or 300 mm. That's more than a bit of oomph on a 1mm pitched screw thread. Now, you might create some "gain" by using a long-pitch helical thread, around the firing bolt, keyed to the recoiling mass.

But, that recoiling mass needs to exert about as much force as the round being fired does. Let's arbitrarily say the recoiling mass is 500g, you need a way to get that up to around 150 m/s (in a reasonable lock time). The energy required some slose to needing chemical oxidation.

Which is why most recoil-less rifles take some portion of the propellant gasses and accelerate them out of the breech to counter-act recoil.

 

[entropy]

just tell me its major problems and thanks in advance.

Newton's Third Law is immutable.

Basically, you are trying to distribute the recoil equally in two ways, but only using one driving force. Cap'n Mac explained why this doesn't work. The more effective ways of reducing recoil are: High mass moving parts (think AK's and belt-fed MG's), and directing escaping gas backward upon exiting the muzzle. (muzzle brakes) Both have negative consequences, however; Large mass bolts/carriers flinging around in an action make the gun inaccurate, and muzzle brakes increase sound and concussion to the side and slightly back of the muzzle.

Your design appears to be a straight blowback; some locking mechanism would be required for most rifle rounds, even with the mass increase of the top weight.

As Cap'n Mac points out "recoil-less" rifles use venting of a portion of the gasses out the breech area; impractical in a shoulder fired weapon.

 

[ved]

so,what you are telling me to increase the size of gear wheel?

 

[Decoy80]

Eliminating recoil would be the cat's meow if your idea would be doable.
I'd like to think time spent in efforts in recoil reduction would pay better dividends. There have been a lot of highly intelligent people that have spent our tax dollars trying to accomplish this goal.
I'm not an expert by any means or for that matter definitely not a slobbering genius.
Figure it out and you may be on easy street money wise quickly. I wish I could offer you some insight into the effort and you have hope and idea's which gives me hope for our Country.

 

[ved]

but if i somehow transfers the energy to upper bolt will the recoil be get low?

 

[entropy]

but if i somehow transfers the energy to upper bolt will the recoil be get low?

Research the Nikonov AN-94. It combines a method of recoil reduction with temporarily increasing rate of fire, to make a 2 round burst accurate. Note it's not in production.
I recommend studying the physics behind what you're trying to do, and keeping Newton's Laws of Physics in mind. Maybe a rifle that fire two rounds in opposite directions at once?

 

[Hanzo581]

It's 2017, we've been using firearms in one form or another since 1364, where the heck are our phasers? Recoil shouldn't even be a consideration anymore.

Yes I know the military has some cool laser stuff.

 

[ved]

well somethings never change

 

[ved]

Interesting idea, basically creating a linear flywheel of sorts.

However, the size of the gear needed to accelerate the anti-recoil mass would have to be significantly larger.

Lets presume some things, like that the firing bolt is 250grams and the round is launching at 300m/s. In just one millisecond (0.001 seconds) the firing bolt "wants' to back up 0.3m, or 300 mm. That's more than a bit of oomph on a 1mm pitched screw thread. Now, you might create some "gain" by using a long-pitch helical thread, around the firing bolt, keyed to the recoiling mass.

But, that recoiling mass needs to exert about as much force as the round being fired does. Let's arbitrarily say the recoiling mass is 500g, you need a way to get that up to around 150 m/s (in a reasonable lock time). The energy required some slose to needing chemical oxidation.

Which is why most recoil-less rifles take some portion of the propellant gasses and accelerate them out of the breech to counter-act recoil.

what is the basic problem i can't able to get you captain,please explain in simple language

 

[Varminterror]

what is the basic problem i can't able to get you captain,please explain in simple language

He did... For an engineer... You know, one of those kind of qualifications handy for engineering new firearms...

 

[RPRNY]

what is the basic problem i can't able to get you captain,please explain in simple language

In summary, this: "...that recoiling mass needs to exert about as much force as the round being fired does".

Going back to the Immutable Newton's Third Law. Essentially, unless you can 1) create an equal force in the reciprocating portion of your dual bolt and 2) create a reciprocating mechanism that will handle the rather traumatic forces of the @ 50K psi - 60K psi of a modern rifle round, the energy either will not be directed forward or the mechanism will not stand up to the repeated impact of firing.

Rather than a mechanical means of reciprocation, one might consider an hydraulic approach. In short form, using hydraulic transfer in a piston or two pistons as a sort of roller-delayed blowback mechanism to drive a weighted piston forward? Any way I look at it, though, it comes down to the fact that the weight needed for any means of transferring recoil energy forward would render the firearm impractical. Happily for you, however, I am neither particularly inventive nor do I possess the engineering and math skills required to address the matter with anything like a qualification, so you remain quite able to come up with a solution that my limited intellect in the field would have never in a million years conceived! It's certainly an interesting idea and I salute your ingenuity.

 

[Varminterror]

What you have done - Mount a rifle perpendicular to one end of a 4x4 post (firing horizontal). Bolt a set of pillow block bearings to the middle of the 4x4, and mount it horizontally on a vertical fence post (the fulcrum). Hold onto the other end of the horizontal 4x4 (the lever), and pull a string to fire the rifle. See how well that goes for you. Alternatively, what you'll experience will be much like holding your 30-06 over your shoulder, then firing with one hand on the butt, and pulling the trigger with your thumb. If you've ever tried the Annie Oakley trick shot, you'd be familiar with the awkwardness of fighting recoil with your muscles instead of letting your body absorb it as the rifle was designed.

The mechanism would not be recoil-less, if it could be made to work, it would have FORWARD recoil, much like is often felt in a crossbow, but worse.

You'll also fight simple physics. Assuming you can overcome the materials engineering issues inherent with your design - as the firing bolt accelerates rearward, it'll exert an extreme torque impulse upon the rotating gear, which will be resisted by the inertia of the recoil mass. As that gear and mass fight movement, the gear pin (axle) will take a considerable linear impulse, meaning the firing bolt will end up pushing against the pin which will push against the receiver, and then the shooter...

Of course, mechanically, the gear will need to be sufficiently large to have a tooth depth and strength such it doesn't simply shear the teeth upon firing, or result in stress fractures over time. Equally, the bolts will have to be sufficiently large to have equally strong teeth... And again, the transfer of momentum across the system will put extreme stress on the gear pin. Intuitively, my expectation would favor a lighter recoil bolt with a longer travel than the firing bolt, to reduce the inertia of the system. So while it might be possible to design a sufficiently strong system, the weight and size will make the design effectively worthless. And how does the sliding bolt shed friction? How does the gearing mechanism respond to powder fouling? Thermal expansion?

How do you eliminate these moving parts? Well, what about a hydraulic system, or a free floating inertial mass? Well - now you've designed a mercury recoil reducer or a spring reducer. What if you don't like the idea of added weight? You could eliminate a sliding mass altogether as well; how about using propellant gas instead of mechanical gears and weights and springs? So no mass, using gas... You just designed either a muzzle break or a vented breech recoilless rifle... All of these technologies have been successfully implemented for many, many years. But your system is more complicated, more expensive, more failure prone, and heavier.

Repair cost, failure rate, weight, and size are what I'd see, immediately, as prohibitive for practical application.

 

[CapnMac]

what is the basic problem i can't able to get you captain,please explain in simple language

Ok, consider the .45acp--900 fps is right at 275 meters per second (m/s).
You launch 230 fmj (abot 15 grams) at 275 m/s one way, the barrel wants to come back at most of that speed (there are some friction and other losses, but they are probably only ±1 m/s and just make the math weird).
A five inch barrel is 127mm long. If we round that to 125mm, that's 0.125 m (125 ÷ 1000).
So, the barrel wants to recoil its entire length in 1/8 of a second (1 ÷ 8 = 0.125)

Or, as I just thought of, 300 m/s is 615mph

Lets make that gear 10mm diameter. It's circumference is (rounded) 31.5mm. Gear teeth actually dont engage at the circumference, lets round to an even 30mm. Remember the barrel backing up at 300 m/s? That's 300,000mm. Divide that by 30mm, and the gear is spinning at 10,000 revolutions per second (that's 600,000 rpm, about 10x the speed of jet turbine compressor blades)

So, you have to get that small gear up to 10x jet engine speed in under 1/8 second (you probably have about 1/60,000 seconds to get that gear from dead stop to full speed. All to then have to engage the upper counter-recoil mass (which is likely in the range of 600 grams, about 1.3 pounds) moving.

Oh, and there's around a 5% loss engaging a gear. Which you are coping with twice.

So,, ok, lets make the gear bigger. If we go 100mm (gotta love metric, it's all decimal), then the gear only has to get up to 6000 rpm, and time does not scale, so, you still are looking at lock times around 1.66666e-5 seconds. 100mm is not quite 4" diameter--which is starting to be as cumbersome as a recoiling 1.3-1.5# weight on the arm.

Ok, shiny spot--all that mass would offer some "locking" of the breech, which would let you use some larger calibers.

Now, I want to remember that some Dutch or German inventors briefly chased a hydro-pneumatic version of your plan, The breech was fitted with a piston head that pushed mercury around a U bend to push a counter-recoil mass forward. This scheme ran into considerable problems--like dripping mercury. But, mostly, it was in putting 3# of counter-recoil gear on a 1.5# pistol.

 

[CapnMac]

Anyway, that's why my though was to use a diferent gearing altogether.

Put two studs on the muzzle. Wrap a sleeve around the barrel with matching grooves at, oh, 1:12 pitch.

When the barrel fired, it woul go backward and the studs would make the sleeve spin. The sleeve would have a helical spiral grove on the outside, which could then (maybe) drive the counter-recoil mass. On end, it would look a bit like an "8" with the barrel in one loop and the counter-recoil in the other. Nice thing there, the counter rotation would take most of the torque imputed out. Most.

The speed issue would remain; as would the gearing losses. Also the isue of more than doubling the weight to get the beginnings of the effect would also remain.

 

[ved]

now i get what you all want to explain.what if of low power rounds?

 

[CapnMac]

what if of low power rounds?

Well, velocities are higher (.25acp is 320 m/s). The .32acp is a 4 gram bullet at 282 m/s putting out 167 joules (like 122 foot-pounds)

I was using the .45 as a low power round as was.

There's a reason you don't see blowbacks in .30carbine or .375mag.

 

[Kp321]

Back in the late '70's Remington built a low-recoil 870 trap gun. I never saw one in person and only a few write-ups but I think it had a piston in the magazine tube that was driven forward by the cartridge gas to counter some recoil. Don't know how well it worked but it was not in production long.

 

[entropy]

I drew up something similar based off the Ljutic Space Gun that bled gas forward (about the same time too, c. 1979 or 80), but realized the gain wasn't worth the added mechanism and weight; a mercury recoil reducer in a stock is more efficient, and the added weight in the stock is not a factor for Trap.

 

[Toolsteel]

Looks like you're trying to make the gun kick harder by accelerating two masses forward.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

The true recoiless rifles are mostly rocket launcher tubes. As long as Newton's laws of physic's are applicable it is probably impossible to make a traditional cartridge firearm that does not produce some felt recoil. But, you are free to duplicate a Star Trek phaser or a Star Wars blaster without worry of patent infringement.

 

[ants]

It's been done. One of the French machine gun designs in the late 1890's.
I'm trying to go through my old photographs to find the name.

Took pictures of one in a museum three years ago and read the description.
Apparently it worked, it could sustain good rate of fire while keeping on target.
The problem is that reversing the thrust required a really REALLY heavy receiver
to keep it from cracking and breaking, which made the gun so heavy
the operators hated it in the field.

If I recall, the description said that most of them broke during action
at the very beginning of WW I and were left in the field, broken.

Just going from memory, the rotating gear was about 3" in diameter.
Even that wasn't big enough.

 

[ants]

By the way, if you're talking about handgun, look up
extremely slow-motion video of a semi auto being fired.

The recoil happens even before the slide/bolt begins to move.
You would still get recoil, not eliminate it, but your design
will mitigate additional movement from the action itself.

 

[ved]

WHAT ! it was done before I thought mine was original and thanks to all