SpudFiles

Gauge, length (oz. shot@MV) Gun weight (lbs.) Recoil energy (ft. lbs.)
.410 bore, 2.5" (1/2 at 1200) 5.5 7.1
.410 bore, 3" (11/16 at 1135) 5.5 10.5
28 gauge, 2.75" (3/4 at 1200) 6.0 12.8
20 gauge, 2.75" (7/8 at 1200) 6.5 16.1
20 gauge, 2.75" (1 at 1220) 6.5 21.0
20 gauge, 2.75" (1 1/8 at 1175) 6.5 25.0
20 gauge, 3" (1 1/4 at 1185) 6.5 31.0
16 gauge, 2.75" (1 at 1220) 7.0 21.5
16 gauge, 2.75" (1 1/8 at 1240) 7.0 27.6
12 gauge, 2.75" (1 at 1180) 7.5 17.3
12 gauge, 2.75" (1 1/8 at 1200) 7.5 23.0
12 gauge, 2.75" (1 1/4 at 1330) 7.5 32.0
12 gauge, 2.75" (1 1/2 at 1260) 7.5 45.0
12 gauge, 3" (1 5/8 at 1280) 7.5 52.0
12 gauge, 3" (1 7/8 at 1210) 8.75 54.0
10 gauge, 3.5" (2 1/4 at 1210) 10.5 62.9

Just as a comparison, that and i was bored

Ragnarok wrote:I wouldn't routinely shoot something with a recoil over maybe two or three times that because then you start to risk developing a flinch,

if you don't want to develop a flinch, keep a low power pneumatic ready, and after you shoot the big gun, shoot the pneumo, presto! no flinch

If you are willing to use a bipod, you could decrease the recoil immensely, or negate it completely. Take a careful look at the bipod in this picture of a .98 cal Barret sniper "Shoulder Cannon". (It is not as clear in this pic as here, but they wouldn't let me link to it.)



Spikes. Transfer energy to the ground. The entire bolt and barrel of .50-.98 cal are also supported by heavy springs, but that would be difficult to impliment. I recomend a long stock with strong springs to achive the same effect.

EDIT: Fixed image

Hailfire753 wrote:If you are willing to use a bipod, you could decrease the recoil immensely, or negate it completely. Take a careful look at the bipod in this picture of a .98 cal Barret sniper "Shoulder Cannon". (It is not as clear in this pic as here, but they wouldn't let me link to it.)



Spikes. Transfer energy to the ground. The entire bolt and barrel of .50-.98 cal are also supported by heavy springs, but that would be difficult to impliment. I recomend a long stock with strong springs to achive the same effect.

EDIT: Fixed image

Holy shit.

Don't worry. If it misses by 3 feet of the target, the shockwave will only (still) turn the person's guts inside out. And seriously, if you read the page, the recoil is still too much for "human operation". But they are working on it.

You need something like this

that's a big gun, 25mm is an inch right? that's a big gun big gun...

edit: the NTW 20 reminds me of the halo snipers, probably because of that big bar around the scope, and the overall size compared to a human

Almost an inch. 98% of an inch, hence .98 cal. I knew that would steal this thread. LOOK at the bipod, people.

EDIT: Whoops, double post. A video here tells that the muzzle break decreases recoil by 40%. A video here shows fireing without one.

i don't know about you, but i would leave the muzzle break on

Man, when I saw that NTW 20, the first thought in my mind was HALO

Oh my god I'm drooling...that rifle is beautiful.

Anyways, I built a hybrid a few months ago (still tuning it and sorting out problems) but I built a recoil absorbing stock using 1" pipe sleaved into 1 1/4" pipe with a heavy spring just to see if I could do it, and it worked very well.
But to further reduce the felt recoil you'll probably want a relatively heavy launcher and possibly a bi-pod.

Hailfire753 wrote:If you are willing to use a bipod, you could decrease the recoil immensely, or negate it completely.

The spikes on the bipod actually do very little for recoil, the bipod would have to be bolted securely to a hard surface to actually make a significant difference.

The key to reducing felt recoil is spreading it out, the Barrett does this by allowing the barrel to recoil separately. In the NTW-20, the whole action is free mounted in the stock:



I would go with something similar in conjunction with a muzzle brake.

you could use a long recoil system like on this steyr http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn46-e.htm where the barrel travells back a significant distance to help reduce recoil, it also has a massive muzzle brake.

Hailfire753 wrote:Almost an inch. 98% of an inch, hence .98 cal.

I'd just call it 25mm, rather than converting to inches.
I'm personally more interested in the computerised sights than the bipod.

@Eddbot: A low power pneumatic? You think I would keep those around here?
Besides, for safety reasons, there is never more than one loaded launcher on my "range" at any one time.

bluerussetboy wrote: E = 1/2 (Wr / 32) ((Wb x MV + 4700 x Wp) / 7000 x Wr)2

Edit: thanks ragnarok for straightening out the formula

Should there also be a bracket around the 7000 x Wr?

Using that formula (with brackets around 7000 x Wr) and removing the powder term, I get above 50 ft-lbs for my horseshoe launcher. I'm a little guy around 130 lbs and the recoil is manageable. It hurt pretty bad without a proper pad, but I got a shotgun recoil pad and it no longer hurts, although you can still feel the kick pretty good. I wouldn't want to go much above that without something else to help with the recoil.