hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
http://www.big-boys.com/articles/recoilrifle.html
What makes me think they set this guy up?
Regards,
Steve
What makes me think they set this guy up?
Regards,
Steve
Now that is quite a kick, Part Deux...
- Thread starter hardheadjarhead
- Start date
hardheadjarhead said:
Bwahahahaha. . . just 'cause they call it a recoiless. . . . what an idiot. There is a reason they mout these things on jeeps at the very least.
Martial Tucker
Black Belt
My thought exactly.....This looks more like an episode of "Jackass" or something.Tgace said:
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Yup...that was a dumb idea....lol.
OP
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
- Thread Starter
- #7
Tgace said:
I think they DID know better.
I think this guy is firing a 73 mm recoilless rifle. I believe the weapon is supposed to be fired from a tripod, not the shoulder. I say "believe" because I'm not sure this is a 73 mm. Whatever it is, it clearly isn't supposed to be fired from the shoulder, as we can see here.
The Russian 73 can easily be found throughout Afghanistan, I'd imagine. They also had an 83 mm. Maybe its one of the latter.
The US M20 weighed 114 pounds and was 75 mm. The projectile weighed over twenty pounds. I doubt its that one. I can't imagine him picking it up so easily...nor would one easily be found in central Asia. The sight doesn't look right, either, from the pictures I've seen of the M20.
The 57 mm we designed could be fired from the shoulder...but that has long been out of date. Interestingly, the US developed a 90 mm recoilless rifle that apparently weighed only 37 pounds or so. It was designed to fire from a bipod, tripod, or metal frame shoulder mount. Again, this isn't either of those.
Whatever it was, it hurts to shoot, that's for sure.
Regards,
Steve
KenpoTex
Senior Master
Naw, it just looks like a "bigger" version of the time I slipped a 3" Magnum slug in the magazine full of No.8 field-loads for my buddy.Tgace said:
