Post by sirchaos on Jun 18, 2016 5:04:19 GMT -6
Hi guys,
I have a question for those of you with a more profound knowledge of firearms, especially of how they actually work, than me. (Which, really, means pretty much anyone here...) In a discussion on a science fiction oriented board the matter of "Gauss" weapons (i.e. electromagnetic coilguns) versus cenventional firearms came up.
It is my understanding that, in a "conventional" firearm, i.e. one which fires a projectile by means of explosive propellant, the recoil is primarily the result of said propellant exploding; the expanding gases propel the projectile out of the open front end of the barrel because that is the way of least resistance for them.
A coilgun on the other hand propels its projectile via a number of electromagnetic coils in front of the projectile, which power up in sequence to pull the projectile towards the muzzle.
Now, my (admittedly incomplete) understanding of firearms leads me to three observations:
1)
The propellant explosion in a firearm is an inherently chaotic process, directing its energy in front only because it basically has nowhere else to go, which would seem to me to be the cause of a firearm "bucking" in the hands of the shooter when fired, and the shooter needing to correct their aim before the next shot - or else, for recoil causing a weapon to "spray" shots all over the place if fired too rapidly.
A coilgun, on the other hand, pulls the projectile straight forward, and only forward, resulting in recoil that is directed exclusively straight backward. It appears to me, then, that the recoil of a coilgun would be easier to absorb or compensate for than that of a firearm generating the same amount of energy with its propellant.
2) I recall reading that firearms, especially the earlier ones, do not expend the entire energy of the propellant on accelerating the bullet, as the propellant does not necessarily combust completely before the projectile exits the barrel; that same source also stated that the muzzle flash effectively consists of wasted energy that is not used to accelerate the bullet. All this wasted energy, however, should (in my understanding) still generate recoil. It is my understanding that this problem is far less pronounced in modern firearms than in earlier ones (especially blackpowder muzzle-loaders), but that it still exists to some degree.
A coilgun may not be 100% effective in using the energy it generates to accelerate the projectile, either - but since the projectile is literally the only moving thing in a coilgun, none of that wasted energy generates recoil of any kind.
3) Assuming the previous two observations are correct, I would conclude that, comparing a firearm with a coilgun that accelerates a projectile of the same mass to the same muzzle velocity, the coilgun generates less recoil than the firearm, and that the recoil of the coilgun would be easier to absorb or compensate for, and would thus have less effect on accuracy, than the same amount of recoil in a firearm.
So, my question is, are these observations correct? And if not, what mistakes am I making here, and how do they affect my conclusion?
I have a question for those of you with a more profound knowledge of firearms, especially of how they actually work, than me. (Which, really, means pretty much anyone here...) In a discussion on a science fiction oriented board the matter of "Gauss" weapons (i.e. electromagnetic coilguns) versus cenventional firearms came up.
It is my understanding that, in a "conventional" firearm, i.e. one which fires a projectile by means of explosive propellant, the recoil is primarily the result of said propellant exploding; the expanding gases propel the projectile out of the open front end of the barrel because that is the way of least resistance for them.
A coilgun on the other hand propels its projectile via a number of electromagnetic coils in front of the projectile, which power up in sequence to pull the projectile towards the muzzle.
Now, my (admittedly incomplete) understanding of firearms leads me to three observations:
1)
The propellant explosion in a firearm is an inherently chaotic process, directing its energy in front only because it basically has nowhere else to go, which would seem to me to be the cause of a firearm "bucking" in the hands of the shooter when fired, and the shooter needing to correct their aim before the next shot - or else, for recoil causing a weapon to "spray" shots all over the place if fired too rapidly.
A coilgun, on the other hand, pulls the projectile straight forward, and only forward, resulting in recoil that is directed exclusively straight backward. It appears to me, then, that the recoil of a coilgun would be easier to absorb or compensate for than that of a firearm generating the same amount of energy with its propellant.
2) I recall reading that firearms, especially the earlier ones, do not expend the entire energy of the propellant on accelerating the bullet, as the propellant does not necessarily combust completely before the projectile exits the barrel; that same source also stated that the muzzle flash effectively consists of wasted energy that is not used to accelerate the bullet. All this wasted energy, however, should (in my understanding) still generate recoil. It is my understanding that this problem is far less pronounced in modern firearms than in earlier ones (especially blackpowder muzzle-loaders), but that it still exists to some degree.
A coilgun may not be 100% effective in using the energy it generates to accelerate the projectile, either - but since the projectile is literally the only moving thing in a coilgun, none of that wasted energy generates recoil of any kind.
3) Assuming the previous two observations are correct, I would conclude that, comparing a firearm with a coilgun that accelerates a projectile of the same mass to the same muzzle velocity, the coilgun generates less recoil than the firearm, and that the recoil of the coilgun would be easier to absorb or compensate for, and would thus have less effect on accuracy, than the same amount of recoil in a firearm.
So, my question is, are these observations correct? And if not, what mistakes am I making here, and how do they affect my conclusion?