Semi-OT: Do Gauss Rifles Kick?

[pmulcahy11b]

I call this thread "semi-OT" because in 30-50 years time or so, gauss rifles may be a standard infantry weapon...

For those who have never been able to play Traveller, a gauss rifle is a personal-sized electromagnetic railgun. My question is: would a gauss rifle kick If so, would it kick less or more than a similar-caliber rifle of today Would a recoil dampener be easier to make for a gauss rifle

[headquarters]

ahemm..

all my technological insight on this comes from RPG lit.,so I amnot really sure and so on and so on..but!

I venture : no.

It accelerates its projectile through magnetic fields that only excert energy one way -and friction between weapon and projectile is zilch.

( I think)

[Adm.Lee]

I thought that was half of the point of making a gauss gun-- no recoil, and really high muzzle velocity

[StainlessSteelCynic]

As far as I have been able to understand the technical information it's as Headquarters mentioned, they don't produce recoil because they don't have any explosive force to counteract.

[Legbreaker]

What about inertia
Of course there would be recoil, it's just unlikely to be a big factor.

Just remember that "for every action" ie the projectile moving forward, "there is a equal and opposite reaction" ie recoil.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Actually I've made a big mistake, confusing railguns with gauss guns. The two work on different principles and I really need to find a site with a simpler explanation of the two
Gauss guns, also called coilguns do display a recoil comparable to modern firearms according to this site http://www.orbitalvector.com/Tactica...s/COILGUNS.htm

[kato13]

Due to conservation of momentum any weapon that fires a projective is going to have some recoil based on the mass of the projectile and how fast it leaves the barrel. If the (similar mass) projectiles leave the barrel at the same velocity the force generated backwards should be the same. However I am not sure that an equal force would result in a totally equal "recoil". I am assuming that a Gauss projectile would have more even acceleration when compared with a chemical projectile. This might reduce the high end force felt at any particular moment during the projectile's acceleration phase and there fore might reduce the apparent recoil.

[Legbreaker]

The force applied would be equal in both directions, however the much greater mass of the weapon over the projectile will minimise the amount actually felt by the firer.

[kato13]

Was thinking about this more. Technically the mass of the propellant would also need to considered, given that a majority of it also leaves the barrel at a significant velocity. So chemical propelled weapons would have a larger rearward force.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

A problem comes about with larger weapons (i.e. multiple coils) because the opposition forces are not necessarily directed backwards and the energy is applied sequentially.
The weapon sends the projectile out of the barrel by the force of magnetic attraction first (drawing the projectile towards the coil) and then magnetic repulsion after (pushing the projectile away from the coil after it has passed through the coil).
Each individual application of energy only generates a small recoil force but there's a number of them running in sequence. I really do not understand much about the way the magnetic force works and what sort of effect it has regarding recoil so for the more technically proficient, you should probably google for a better explanation than mine

[Legbreaker]

My thoughts are that the projectile is not actually kicked out the barrel by a single event but accellerated by the coils (or whatever).
Therefore, while there will still be a felt recoil, it will not be so jarring to the firer as with conventional propellants (but would still be applied in a fraction of a second).

[Targan]

What about inertia Of course there would be recoil, it's just unlikely to be a big factor. Just remember that "for every action" ie the projectile moving forward, "there is a equal and opposite reaction" ie recoil.

Due to conservation of momentum any weapon that fires a projective is going to have some recoil based on the mass of the projectile and how fast it leaves the barrel.

I'm really glad someone pointed this out. Of course there would be recoil! Probably not as much as with a chemical propellant weapon, but it will still be there. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. One difference between the two different types of projectile weapon that springs to mind is that the projectile in a conventional firearm is accelerated the most at the moment of propellant ignition, then acceleration drops off sharply as the bullet moves down the barrel. In a railgun the acceleration of the projectile remains roughly constant until it exits the barrel.

[pmulcahy11b]

So the recoil would be more of a push on the shoulder instead of one kick. Would automatic fire simply result in a longer push

[Legbreaker]

Accuracy might increase as you're unlikely to need a great big bolt, etc as you do in the M60 banging back and forth inside. I'd imagine the only working parts would be those moving the new round into position for firing.
The whole weapon could probably be lighter than conventional weapons that need to account for the rapidly expanding gases and extremely high internal pressures, and this could actually have a detrimental effect on recoil - less mass to soak up the recoil.

The time it would take for a single projectile to move from the "breach" to the muzzle isn't likely to be all that much longer than a conventional round - a small fraction of a second. However, it probably would be slow enough than the felt recoil would be more like a swift push than a sudden thump.

Firing cyclicly, I would imagine it would be a little like holding a hose and after the initial half second, be much easier to keep on target. It does depend a lot on the RPM of the weapon though - slow RPM would certainly result in "pulsing" while faster RPM would be much smoother (but chew through ammo and power).

[Targan]

Accuracy might increase as you're unlikely to need a great big bolt, etc as you do in the M60 banging back and forth inside. I'd imagine the only working parts would be those moving the new round into position for firing. The whole weapon could probably be lighter than conventional weapons that need to account for the rapidly expanding gases and extremely high internal pressures, and this could actually have a detrimental effect on recoil - less mass to soak up the recoil.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of the largest, if not the largest, part of such a weapon's mass would be its power pack. The designers of such a weapon would no doubt place the power pack in such a location on the weapon as to maximise the use of the power pack's mass to negate recoil as much as possible and balance the weapon. The power pack wouldn't get lighter as it is depleted, unlike a magazine or belt, and the projectile magazine would weigh very little compared to a magazine holding conventional bullets. So the weapon should stay balanced even as its power and ammunition is depleted.

The time it would take for a single projectile to move from the "breach" to the muzzle isn't likely to be all that much longer than a conventional round - a small fraction of a second. However, it probably would be slow enough than the felt recoil would be more like a swift push than a sudden thump.

Firing cyclicly, I would imagine it would be a little like holding a hose and after the initial half second, be much easier to keep on target. It does depend a lot on the RPM of the weapon though - slow RPM would certainly result in "pulsing" while faster RPM would be much smoother (but chew through ammo and power).

Most concept gauss rifle plans I have seen use very small, very high velocity flechettes. Each round weighs much less than most RL bullets. The rate of fire for a gauss rifle could theoretically be incredibly high, especially as the very small diameter and mass of each round naturally lends itsself to a high ROF.