By Guy Neill
If you’ve shot a gun, you have experienced recoil. Following Newton’s Third Law, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Firing the gun propels the bullet through the barrel. That’s the action. Recoil is the reaction.
Experienced shooters understand that the heavier and faster the bullet, the more the gun will recoil. The heavier, faster the bullet, the better it is to have a heavy gun to absorb more of the recoil. However, no one likes carrying a heavy handgun, so it becomes a matter of balancing the gun’s weight and the recoil.
To illustrate, I’ve included a graph showing the relationship between the amount of recoil and the weight of the gun. This in the graph is a magic gun. It gives the exact same ballistic performance, but only changes weight. The cartridge used for the example fires a .357 Magnum 125gr bullet with a muzzle velocity of 1300 fps. That produces a muzzle energy for the bullet of 469.0 ft-lbs.
To obtain the best recoil value, we need to include the powder weight. Checking a reloading manual, there is a load using 15.0gr of powder that delivers the velocity we are using. The powder comprises a significant portion of the total recoil. We’ll look at that shortly.
In the graph, the handgun weight varies from 10 ounces to 50 ounces. That range should cover most of the guns people are using and carrying most often. As expected, the more the gun weighs, the less recoil the shooter experiences, To lessen recoil, heavy guns rule.
Looking at some specific revolvers, we have several Smith & Wesson models offered in .357 Magnum . . .
The Model 360PD is a great gun to carry because of its light weight. But you may not like shooting it very much, also because of its very light weight.
The old saw is that in a shoot-out, you’ll never notice the recoil because of the adrenaline and concentration on the situation. That’s quite likely true. However, you need to shoot it enough in training to ensure you can handle the recoil and shoot accurately.
The list of guns above includes the recoil without consideration of the powder charge. The recoil without the powder is substantially less than the full recoil. While looking at the recoil without the powder may allow comparing factory rounds where we don’t know the powder charge, it wouldn’t be near the actual amount of recoil.
We could pull a bullet from a factory cartridge and measure the amount of powder. Without the powder charge, it may do as well to look at the muzzle energy of two loads to compare them.
In this example, the powder contributed 48.6% of the total recoil. Different loads will be different, but, in general, the powder portion of recoil is significant.
When looking a buying a new gun, you’d do well to consider the recoil. Experienced shooters may not worry too much about recoil, but inexperienced shooters may want to wait and gain some experience before acquiring a super lightweight gun. That goes for any gun – rifle, pistol or shotgun.
Starting out with a light-shooting .22 LR gun is reduces the recoil enough to allow a new shooter to learn without being intimidated by recoil. We want new shooters to learn the basics and not fear the gun, to have them enjoy shooting. If their first experience includes pounding recoil, they may walk away from shooting. That’s everyone’s loss.
Starting with a gun chambered in .22 Long Rifle is the way to go for most beginners. It offers economy and ultra-low recoil. A Ruger Mark IV model weighs about 28 ounces. Shooting it with typical high speed .22 LR rounds, the recoil will be about 0.75 ft-lbs. That’s very easy to handle and won’t intimidate a new shooter.
Recoil is neither good nor bad. It’s simply part of the physics of the process. Heavy recoil can negatively affect shooting until the shooter has accustomed himself to it (and sometimes even then).
Where I grew up, a big deer may have weighed 150 lbs. Most weren’t that big. I was always amazed at the number of hunters using various magnum rifles — 7mm Remington Mags and .300 Winchester Mags being much more common than I thought practical. Later in life, when I was in a position to answer questions from shooters, a common question was how they could reduce the recoil from their magnum rifle.
There are three ways any shooter can reduce the recoil they’re feeling. One is to add weight to the gun. One is to download the cartridge, if they reloaded. The last option is to get a gun that’s chambered for a smaller cartridge. If it’s a rifle, maybe a .308 Winchester or 7mm-08, for example.
Guns don’t work without recoil. Perhaps sometime in the future we’ll learn to defy physics and have recoilless firearms. For now, we need to deal with what we’ve got.
In general, yes
Like everything else in life, there are variations that change the equation.
RE: “Guns don’t work without recoil. Perhaps sometime in the future we’ll learn to defy physics and have recoilless firearms. For now, we need to deal with what we’ve got.”
Very good article however unless Gun Control is dead and buried “we” the people in the future will be banned from owning any such enhanced, “assault weapons.” So how do you bury Gun Control? You get off your behind and take Gun Control’s racist and nazi baggage and justifiably use it to bury Gun Control deep beneath its very own confirmed history of filth. Anything less is unacceptable…Mr. Gottlieb et al.
What about the effects of muzzle breaks? I’ve always suspected that they make less difference than advertised, but not nothing.
Daniel, I have one rifle with a muzzle break. The only reason is it was on the rifle when I bought it. It was installed by Mag-Na-Port. Caliber is 7mm Mag. If it mitigates recoil I can’t tell it. In the field or from a bench. It does make it a very loud rifle. I find muzzle blast much more disturbing than free recoil.
And it annoys the people beside you. Especially in indoor ranges or covered outdoor ranges.
That Larry Magnuson guy was pretty handy with a .44mag, I think he even got an elephant with one.
I was going to have the Ruger Super Blackhawk ‘ Silhouette Special’ magnaported but that would have throwed me into the unlimited class IMHSA(revolver vs. Contender, and Contenders were doing it on the cheap, big lose for wheel gunms) that and I didnt want to alter the revolver.
You can never tell what may become a classic, found out original cardboard box is worth $75 when sold with firearmn.
That particular firegunm though is one I will not sale, to much history behind it. Saved my wife and me in an attempted car jacking robbery, was stolen and recovered from a coke gang two years before that, several deer, 3 coyotes and got me some ” Damn you can shoot.” just playing around.
No, I cant shoot.
I do have good trigger control, a relaxed attitude, and lots of trigger time.
muzzle brakes have two components they can affect. Muzzle rise, and rearward movement. Mag-na-port’s designs are not particularly effective at either, but they are generally better at reducing muzzle rise if it’s the slots on top variety. The spiral holes just cut down on some of the recoil from the jetting effect of the burning powder. A more effective design will hold the muzzle in place better. None are 100% effective, but they can make a difference. Even so, reducing muzzle rise in a bolt gun is kind of a moot point as you have to disrupt your sight picture to operate the action anyway.
Muzzle brakes work by redirecting some of the gas that ordinarily blasts out the front of the muzzle, to the sides or even slightly rearward. The more high-velocity gas that exits the muzzle, the better the brake works. On a .45ACP for instance, a brake works, but not very significantly. On a 9mm or 9×21 or 9×23 IPSC race gun, with higher velocity gas exiting, they work very well. I have a 7mm STW that I mounted a VAIS brake on, and it significantly reduces felt recoil. On my 50BMG, the rifle would be unshootable without a brake, which also has the bonus effect of clearing off the shooting benches on either side of me of any loose paper, ammo boxes, or small mammals.
The increased noise shouldn’t be a factor for hunting rifles, because you should be wearing hearing protection no matter what. Even for just one shot at a deer. I’m the only guy at my hunt club who wears hearing protection, but I’ve lost too much hearing as it is and I can’t spare anymore. I enjoy bow season because I don’t have to wear ear plugs. I’m thinking about getting a suppressor for my rifle, but I hate a super long gun and I’m not sure if a 16” barrel on a 270 would suppress well.
TTAG has a whole series here about muzzle brakes written by Jeremy S. You may want to read/watch it. Very informative and extremely comprehensive. It should put to rest all your doubts as to whether brakes (as opposed to compensators / blast or flash mitigators).
The physics of muzzle brakes I understand are that the moment the bullet leaves the barrel the pressure wave expands and acts on the face of the muzzle. Say the pressure is 10,000 psi and face area is 1 in square, a force of 10,000 pounds is applied until that pressure dissipates. If the brake bleeds that gas off prior bullet leaving, no more kick.
My 300 WM has a slender hunting barrel and the Magna Ports aim rear ward so it also gives a jet reaction with a forward component. Same ammo out of a heavier bull barrel without Magna Port was significantly worse in felt recoil. So this implies a brake can be more important than say a full pound of barrel weight.
On that note two identical guns except where one has a weight added have the same recoil energies but the light one applies it in less time so it feels worse.
If you want to calculate recoil for your rifle > http://kwk.us/recoil.html
Being fully aware of the continued good natured conversation underneath my comment…..
Oh boy! I wanna know how much “punch” I’m feeling from my 300 WSM! Thanks .40!
.40, thanks for the link, but I don’t need to calculate recoil. I know what it feels like.
it was for anyone, not aimed at you specifically. Some people are curious.
.40, I know that. What? You never got a poke in the ribs before?
yes.
No pain, no gain, right? Everything I love hurts. Motorcycles, big trucks, building, smoking, drinking, women, and the list goes on. Why should guns be any different?
And, I’m only half joking, guys. Life is what it is.
But, to be more serious, yeah, it only makes sense to use a weapon that doesn’t scare you, and doesn’t cause a lot of pain. Starting a beginner out with an elephant gun only demonstrates that you’re an arse. Give that beginner something small and manageable, and let him/her work up to whatever he is ultimately comfortable with.
Personally, I’ve never owned a magnum rifle or pistol. 1911 Colt .45 is quite satisfying, without resorting to any fancy magnum calibers. As for rifles, I’m partial to the .270 and the .308. Either of them will kill a deer (hog, whatever) just as dead as any super-high powered rifle. Maybe if I were going out for grizzly, or polar bear, I might reconsider. Then again, I probably wouldn’t.
Paul,
You haven’t lived until you have owned and shot a full-size Magnum revolver.
I recommend a .44 Magnum revolver which weighs at least 54 ounces. They are (excuse the pun) a blast to shoot!
I thought recoil is what a rattlesnake does if it misses the first time.
recoil is what you do when you wake up in the morning and find that hot looking woman you pickup in the bar the night before is still there and is what the word “ugly” in the dictionary means.
I’ve never brought a woman back from a bar. Well not on her own free will anyway, and beauty is only skin deep.
Some onions, a little pepper and salt, sweet baby Ray’s barbeque sauce .
She was nice while it lasted
“I’ve never brought a woman back from a bar. Well not on her own free will anyway,…”
I can visualize that, the Possum dragging home a drunk skank to his burrow, kicking the pile of dried leaves aside, taking her inside, and hearing all kinds of grunts, squeals, and giggles coming from inside…
Do’in it Possum-style! 🙂
She may have been a skank?
Did have a skunk between her legs though. errr was it a beaver?
Some kind of animal, whatever it was it ran off the first chance it got.
Out of curiosity, I rewatched the video and payed a little more attention to her then me.
It was a Muskrat, the Captain and Tennil tattoo she had should have been the tip off.
“If you’ve shot a gun, you have experienced recoil. Following Newton’s Third Law, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Firing the gun propels the bullet through the barrel. That’s the action. Recoil is the reaction.
Meanwhile, in actual physics, more correctly, recoil is a result of conservation of momentum (The Law of Conservation of Momentum). The principle of conservation of momentum is a direct consequence, not result, of Newton’s third law of motion.
“Meanwhile, in actual physics, more correctly,…”
You’re a real buzz-kill at parties, aren’t you?
(Like I imagine my demented troll just sucks the life out of any room he enters… 😉 )
Well, this is going to further confuse your day then…
“As expected, the more the gun weighs, the less recoil the shooter experiences, To lessen recoil, heavy guns rule.”
In the real world of the physics involved, in terms of guns, its actually the more mass a gun has the less it will travel in recoil.
The difference between mass and weight; Mass is the measurement of how much matter is contained within an object – weight is a measurement of how much gravity is pulling down on an object.
“Mass is the measurement of how much matter is contained within an object – weight is a measurement of how much gravity is pulling down on an object.”
Which is why “mass” (anti-satellite projectiles) can still be destructive in the “weightlessness” of space.
More correctly the recoil energy of a light or heavy gun is the same if the charge etc is the same. I mean adding a 1 lb weight to a rifle doesn’t change recoil energy, it changes the frequency component of the rearward motion to a lower value. So in general it bruises less. BTW a 300WM fired with butt on a tree will typically split the stock as the stuff butt wood can’t take the high F part.
You need to know more than just the weight of the powder charge to calculate the total recoil momentum and recoil energy. You need to know the residual velocity of the propellent gases and any unburnt powder as they exit the muzzle. Keep in mind the probable peak gas expansion velocity of the propellent that isn’t pushing a bullet is on the order of 9,000 feet per second. However; by forcing the propellent gases to accelerate the projectile, you transfer kinetic energy from the gases to the bullet. More energy from the gases is absorbed by the gun barrel and bullet as heat, but this is minor.
You need to subtract the muzzle velocity of the bullet from the probable potential energy of the propellent to estimate the residual energy of the gases. Then you can use the equation:
V = (2KE)^1/2
to calculate the residual energy of the propellent gases.
All of this being said, the fact that propellent mass is generally much smaller than bullet mass, the extra recoil from the propellent gases doesn’t dramatically increase the recoil energy. It isn’t as if you are designing the buffer and recuperator for a tank cannon.
If you are interested, I could write a more in depth article that would get deeper into the math and physics.
@Elmer Fudd
Darn it! You beat me to it. 😊
Good job.
I think your equation should be:
V = (2KE/m)^1/2
Nice start but really this only applies to bolt-action rifles, revolvers, and break-open or pump shotguns.
Mitigating recoil starts with choosing a semi-auto. All that reciprocating action absorbs a lot of the recoil impulse. Revolvers have hellacious recoil as compared to a comparable-weight semi-auto shooting a comparable round.
Second is grip width. A wide double-stack grip drastically reduces felt recoil as compared to a thin single stack. A Glock 30 shooting full-bore .45 has less felt recoil than a G43 shooting 9mm.
Third, rubber helps. A rubber recoil pad takes all the sting out of a 12-gauge. The rubber grips on a Taurus .454 Casull make recoil on that heavy blast a lot more palatable than wood or plastic grips on a little .357.
You got that right! I have a Limbsaver for my shotgun…at nearly 68 I need to limit my pain.
Here comes the spellcheck police….sponsored by no one, ignored by all.
Muzzle “Brake”
Not Muzzle “Break”
OK, class, you may return to your regularly scheduled program.
I have a brake open shotgunm
“I have a brake open shotgunm”
That’s an entirely different animal.
Interesting/informative change of pace.
Position building and recoil management and an effective muzzle brake….not all brakes are effective to the same level of performance……greatly impact the felt recoil.
“There are three ways any shooter can reduce the recoil they’re feeling. One is to add weight to the gun. One is to download the cartridge, if they reloaded. The last option is to get a gun that’s chambered for a smaller cartridge. If it’s a rifle, maybe a .308 Winchester or 7mm-08, for example.” Not apparent in the “download the cartridge” option, in addition to the assumed intent of dropping powder charge, and thus muzzle velocity, is going to a lighter weight projectile…..ie for a .308 bullet, drop from a 220gr or 180gr to a 150gr.
Once again far too many opeolle use the medium to express political viewpoints.The article is about RECOIL stay with that or stay BORING I was a small Arms Instructor and Armouer innthe Royal Air Force and trained Infantry in the UK army reserves, Atb the time the standard side arm was the BROWNING Hi-POWER 9mm which to me combined a controllable recoil with sufficient power to kill most potential targets, that’s why the 9mm Parabellum was the choice of the majority of Armed Forces and Police was a 9mm in the first place. The fact is that if the recoil of a side arm is above a certain level it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep on target because of the TORQUE effect on the lower arm resulting in a slow accurate cycling rate. In combat terms Magnums and their like are more of a hindrance that a help THhe COLT -45 ACP is about at the very limit of a useful handgun The exception would be the RHINO or the MATABE Multi- Cal which as you know have the barrel below the cylinder/sight line and in line with the major arm bones. However they are inherently expensive and complex and far from being Soldier Proof
Albert Hall,
On the negative side, my .44 Magnum revolver creates stout recoil which obviously reduces my rate of fire. On the plus side, my .44 Magnum revolver launches a bullet which is so large and so fast–and hence so devastating–that I don’t need a high rate of fire.
Look at it this way regarding a determined attacker:
With a 9mm Luger semi-automatic handgun platform, you would typically have to land several rounds on target (center mass) to physically incapacitate your attacker. In that situation a relatively fast rate of fire is incredibly desirable.
With a .44 Magnum revolver platform which launches 180 grain bullets at 1,600+ feet-per-second (that is over 1,000 foot-pounds energy at the muzzle), you would typically only have to land ONE round on target (center mass) to physically incapacitate your attacker. In that situation a fast rate of fire is irrelevant.
Once you realize that sending a single .44 Magnum bullet to “center mass” imparts basically the same energy and trauma as sending THREE 9mm Luger bullets to “center mass”, you realize that rate of fire is a lot less important and therefore recoil is a lot less important.
Wouldn’t expect a limey to be able to handle a .44 mag.
we need to build real rail guns now. With a real rail gun – No recoil, very high velocity, ammo can cost literally pennies (serious, you would be able to launch pennies with a real rail gun, among other small metal objects, bb’s would be good, at velocities greater than any firearm ammo today), silent expect perhaps for a little slight mechanical noise depending on the design.
Real rail guns though, first – they are still basically theory for they type I described in a person portable form, second – They utilize a magnetic field powered by an energy source (e.g. electricity) to accelerate a projectile and that power source is not going to be very easy to lug around.
Laser weaponry is well on the way.
Its already here, flying in space.
i’m talking about man protable
Real railguns exist.
Railguns have recoil just like conventional guns
Hmmm, yes and no.
In a rail gun the force is due to a cross product of the Lorentz force, so what we experience in the backwards linear force as the main recoil in firearms today for a rail gun is an energy force displacement sideways (e.g. left, right, up, down, angles away from rail gun linear axis) so you don’t experience it as recoil like in firearms. So that sideways motion energy force displacement could be called ‘recoil’ I guess but its not the recoil like we have in firearms today.
But, there is something that can be felt and kinda called recoil sort of similar to what we have with firearms today, basically; In firearms today, the energy for the momentum we feel in recoil starts when the bullet is fired. But energy has to go go some place because it can not be created or destroyed. In a real rail gun there is an energy component that causes a linear back momentum energy displacement along the rail gun axis. This is caused by, in a real rail gun, the magnetic field produced from the current flowing to accelerate the projectile. You would experience that as a sort of what one could possibly call ‘recoil’ when the momentum force (sideways) of the rail gun reaches zero after the projectile leaves the rail gun if that energy axis is linear along the rail gun axis.
So there is something from a real rail gun that could be termed ‘recoil’ but its not really recoil in terms of what we have with firearms today, but rather the result of basically energy displacement along some axis after the projectile leaves the rail gun. But yeah, there is something that could be called recoil but isn’t in terms of what we experienced today as firearm recoil.
.40 cal Booger,
Regardless of the exact mechanism of a rail gun, the simple fact remains that the rail gun and the projectile are a system and conservation of momentum and energy applies to that system just like it applies to all systems.
In such a system the end result is that the rail gun imparts momentum onto a projectile. (The projectile was initially at rest inside the rail gun and then leaves the rail gun with some “muzzle” velocity.) If that projectile leaves the rail gun going to the right with a momentum of X, then the rail gun has to be going to the left with a momentum of X. (Of course, if that rail gun is rigidly affixed to Earth whose mass is trillions of times greater than the projectile, then there will be no measurable change in the Earth’s velocity.)
That is why directed-energy weapons are a panacea compared even to rail guns–because the reaction force of directed-energy weapons is negligible.
I think you missed something.
Because conservation of momentum is at play it does not mean recoil is produced. Displacement of energy to defer momentum along an axis is not the same as firearms recoil.
When we enter rail gun territory it becomes more about acceleration and mass and in terms of those we have conservation of momentum at play where as with a firearm we have conservation of momentum at play in relation to a bullet travel down the barrel expending kinetic energy that produces momentum forward and rearward.
A firearm is a zero sum device in terms of momentum because the forward momentum is equal to the rearward momentum (but we don’t feel it all because of the mass of the gun, but for some guns you might).
A true (real) rail gun isn’t a zero sum device in terms of momentum because it does not have momentum expressed by kinetic energy being expended but rather the energy is displaced to defer the momentum.
Its two different applications of conservation of momentum, when it applies.
.40 cal Booger,
You don’t have to call it recoil. You can call it a “reaction force” on the rail gun if you like that term better.
A force pushes the projectile out of the rail gun. That force has to be relative to something else. In this case, that force is relative to the rail gun itself. The magnetic fields which the rail gun generates push the projectile–which also pushes back against the magnetic fields of the rail gun (which therefore pushes the rail gun itself).
As you well know, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Or if your prefer, “You don’t get something for nothing.” The projectile leaving a rail gun clearly has momentum. That momentum has to come from some other object–the rail gun.
You need to go review vector calculus. I’ve actually participated in test firings of railguns. They are set up on slides just like conventional artillery to enable them to reciprocate to absorb recoil.
Why sure they are. Never said they weren’t. All I’m saying is its not recoil like firearms recoil.
@uncommon_sense
“The projectile leaving a rail gun clearly has momentum. That momentum has to come from some other object–the rail gun.”
Hmmm no. You missed something. The rail gun does not produce momentum, it accelerates the projectile via the magnetic field which has zero momentum. An explosion behind a bullet is providing momentum force, a rail gun has no such beginning momentum force source and just sits at zero in the magnetic field. Momentum is a vector quantity, it has both magnitude and direction. Newton’s second law of motion tells us that the time rate of change of momentum is equal to the force acting on, in this case, the projectile. The rail gun magnetic field provides us a change from zero to the accelerated rate with a magnitude (velocity) and direction (away from the rail gun) by acting on the projectile which gains velocity in a direction on its own from zero as a result of the magnetic field interaction.
For a firearm there is an equal forward and back momentum force, basically that is what defines ‘recoil’ for a firearm. A rail gun though starts at zero then forward from there and there isn’t a back momentum force when the projectile is launched like there is when a bullet is fired.
What you are wanting to term recoil is simply, like I said, an energy displacement along some axis after the projectile leaves the rail gun.
This is because a lot of energy is being produced and after the projectile leaves the rail gun all that energy is still there and needs to go someplace. So its displaced back along the lateral axis in the collapsing magnetic field like it should under Lorentz and Newtons and that is what Elmer Fudd is also seeing and why his rail guns are set up on slides like conventional artillery pieces – to provide the absorption of that displaced energy.
Its sort of like a firearm – a firearm is a sum zero device for a reason, even if the inventors never imagined it, its what makes firearms remain intact when they fire – the action of that forward momentum force and rearward momentum force being equal end up cancelling each other. If that did not happen the firearm would start coming apart when it was fired because that’s a lot of energy and it has to go someplace and it does when it gets cancelled out by the opposing but equal moment force.
A rail gun though has no rearward momentum force when the projectile is fired, it starts at zero and there is not an opposing component so what we are left with is unspent energy that in a firearm has an opposing and equal momentum force to cancel it out. In a rail gun that unspent energy vector force needs to be absorbed or countered with an equal force if the rail gun is to remain intact. Thus Elmer Fudd’s post above, the absorption is provided.
You can call it recoil if you want, not saying you can’t. But in relation to firearms its not recoil because there are not two opposite vectors of equal opposing momentum force for the projectile.
So, which of these has the least recoil:
12 gauge autoloader
.45 cal long slide
Uzi 9mm
Pulsed plasma rifle in the 40 watt range
Hey, just what you see buddy!
Was is everyone so excited about a Plasma rifle in the 40 Watt range? That is the power output of a dim lightbulb. That isn’t even a pea shooter. You would need to have a power output of at least hundreds of kilowatts in order to inflict significant damage on a human being.
Recoil should be calculated in newtons, not ft-lbs
newtons is a unit of force, ft-lbs is a unit of work or energy.
F=ma
In addition to the weight/power ratio of the gun/ammo in measuring ‘felt recoil’, gun design also plays a part. In both handguns and rifles, the higher the axis/center line of the bore to the grip/stock hold can affect ‘felt recoil’. That’s why AR style rifles have less felt recoil with the same caliber/weight as do conventional-style rifles. Their bore is more center-line to the shooter’s grip (straight back recoil) than convention rifles. Handgun grip design can also make a difference in felt recoil. A Colt Peacemaker in .357 mag. will ‘kick’ or ‘whip’ more than a S&W or Colt double-action of similar weight in .357 because of the rounded grip and higher bore axis of the single-action Peacemaker. Autos with a more pronounced grip angle (i.e.: Lugers, Glocks) will have less felt recoil than guns with more conventional grip angles (i.e.: old S&W 59 series, Colt 1911,SIG 320, etc.) because the top of the shooting hand fits further forward underneath the slide giving a better grip and control of the gun during firing, especially rapid fire. Shoot a Colt 1911 in one hand and a Glock 21 in the other and notice the difference. In the end, to each his own. Whatever floats your boat is the one you should carry.
If it hurts the first time I don’t do it again.
the 360PD is a .38 special revolver.
its the 340 PD that is 357.
Does anyone know if a pulsed plasma rifle has significant recoil? Possibly one in the 40 watt range?
We can ask Arnold but satellite plasma thrusters accelerate ion streams to get very efficient thrust for fuel mass.
But these I think only work in near vacuum and typically are tiny thrusters.
Forty watts seems small. If we ran 40 W into a storage bank for say one second that’s only 40 Joule. So store it 1000 seconds, 40,000 Joules, figure out how to instantly discharge that as an ion stream at say 1% speed of light, might be a lot of recoil. Any plasma physics people wanna help here?