![wI83WSp[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/l3afFNe.jpg "wI83WSp[1].jpg")
>Firing a gun from a tri-pod makes it more powerful
Is there actually any truth to this? It doesn't sound right but I don't know enough about it to say its untrue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivYlHU0Zi-I
He is British and has no military experience, which means his understanding of firearms is about as refined as the average COD kiddo.
>>29136609
Check the catalog.
It makes it easier to control, which makes the "machinegun" (a unit consisting of a gunner, tripod and gun) more powerful. But the gun itself is still the same.
>>29136609
It makes it more effective/accurate since it's more controllable. Can't say it gained any "power" though.
>>29136645
The way he words it, is that by absorbing the recoil with just your shoulder, and therefore being "knocked back" that actually takes energy out of your bullets, where a tripod literally gives the bullets more energy.
>>29136669
No. that is completely wrong.
Lloyd is a fucking idiot. the man knows fuck all about far too many subjects. his only talent is he sounds confident while talking. he could state that guns operate by putting bullets in the end of the barrel and the brass falls into the magazine after, and he could make it sound like he's certain its true.
the force is simple, newtonian physics, the third Law of Motion: For every force, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
it doesnt matter if the gun is floating in space, hand-held, mounted, or welded onto a steel block. the force is identical. you have a force push the bullet forward, you have a force push the gun back. (for simplicity, assume the same gun, same cartridge, same bullet weight.)
the only difference is that the recoil is dissipated in a shorter time on a mounted gun. nothing more.
So does that mean thay, if there was absolutely no resistance behind the gun, firing it would make it fly backward while the bullet stays still?
>>29136609
Will he take this video down or add a correction? Talk about forever cementing your ignorance on the internet forever.
>>29136777
no. in the absence of everything else, both would move apart from the expanding gasses at the same rate. however a much more massive gun accelerates slower than the much less massive bullet. the total force exerted on each is the same.
>>29136777
No. If we assume a vacuum then the force that propels the bullet forward will act with the same strength upon the gun. However the gun is much heavier and therefore not gain as much speed as the bullet. In this same vacuum the gun would then float backwards forever at the speed it had after firing the bullet.
>>29136787
No, bullshitting and reading wikipedia articles out loud is how he earns his daily bread.
>>29136777
Serious question: did you finish high school?
And no; Lloyd is a self-important moron. The less informed someone is, the less capable they are of recognizing their own incompetence.
>>29136609
In theory that is true but in reality the effect is neglible.
If you let the gun recoil it kind of pulls the barrel off the bullet making the effective length of the barrel shorter. Shorter the barrel, less energy the bullet gains.
Now how much the gun manages to recoil before the bullet exits? Fuck if I know but it most certainly is neglible.
>>29136839
found a neat gif of what i'm trying to say
>>29136793
>>29136715
In theory, it's correct.
If a cannon is bolted to the ground, the cannonball will fly further. It uses the "conservation of momentum" equation for the velocity rather than "conservation of energy" equation.
This is the same concept, scaled down.
Now, whether a tripod is as effective at preventing recoil as bolting a 20-ton cannon to the Earth... that's unlikely.
>>29136862
>less than 1mm
insignificant.
>>29136609
If you point your ass to the sky and release a tremendous fart how much will you impact the earth's orbit?
Lindy's a fuck
>>29136609
This guy seems like he's done a reasonable amount of research. Everything he's saying seems to check out.
>>29136888
but technically correct, which as we all know, is the real important part.
>>29136888
there is a reason precision shooters prefer bolt action. significance is relative
>>29136609
No, you fucking idiot.
Like others say you have more stability, aka accuracy.
Why in Jesus's cum stained asshole would you presume that equates more power?
ITT: no one has even a high-school level understanding of physics.
Fuck you all. Why do you even say shit if it's going to be verifiably retarded.
>>29137787
hi lindy
Stop being retarded now. Assume the gun is moving backwards from recoil at X.X m/s. And the duration of recoil is within the fractions of a second until the bullet exits the gun. Obviously you're going to be losing a meaninglessly small number of projectile speed. No, it won't 'slow' the bullet down, you retards, it's about the relative motion of the components.
>>29137753
>there is a reason precision shooters prefer bolt action. significance is relative
I always thought that's because the chamber of a manual action stays sealed, where a semi bleeds off some of the gas/energy to work the mechanism
>>29136609
of course a gun fired from a tripod would have more muzzle energy than being fired from the shoulder. thats because the recoil is received on a different timescale. the difference would be insignificant though when it comes to the lethality of the projectile. accuracy on the other hand will be highly improved and will make the gun easier to control when firing fully auto and therefore more lethal
I really hope you guys are doing this on purpose.
>>29137825
someone alter this so it jams
need it for keks
>>29136609
>Is there actually any truth to this? It doesn't sound right but I don't know enough about it to say its untrue.
He makes it seem like a big thing but its really not, the difference between a non-stationary and a 100% stationary is so marginally small that it makes no difference in terms of performance. Other factors will eat it up more like barrel temperature or humidity etc, and they are still small marginal factors in terms of power and performance.
But basically a mounted machine gun is more powerful than a non-mounted one, he just took up the wrong reason for it. I've seen actual gun owners and military who have made worse information videos so I think this one is fine and explains most things well to the average person.
>>29139124
>I think this one is fine and explains most things well to the average person.
you just described Lindybiege as a channel perfectly. it's all entry-level information. about everything. history, swords, guns, wargaming. that's not a bad thing, entry-level information is fine, especially if the production quality is good.
he also goes more in-depth about hellenic history, and slings, which is nice.
>>29136609
I only had to watch 2 videos to know lindy is a stupid faggot who fails at history.
His only talents are having a beard and wearing a sweater to impersonate an actual history student.
>>29139157
>it's all entry-level information
That's all history geeks on youtube, most of them being teens who read directly off of wikipedia adding nothing else to it.
>>29139682
Wikipedia paste are not entry level. They are the level inferior to that.
I can vouch for this one--it's just a lead sled with a trailer ball hitch that fits into a rubber socket on a tripod, but it moves smoothly in all directions, and it's small and light enough to carry by its sling.
http://portableriflerest.com/r-a-t-s/
I think what we're all forgetting, or glossing over is that one mm, or however much off, seems irrelevant at the point of internal ballistics-but, that seemingly insignificant deviation can cause quite a difference at range. Not so much in power but accuracy.
I don't know how many mr an M2 is rated at, but I seem to recall deviation being something along the lines of about half a degree fixed, .512 degrees. An arc second is .0027 degrees, one inch of spread at one hundred meters, and a milliradian is 206.22648 arc seconds. You can see how accurate military platforms are when they rate at .5-20 mr in practice.
So the tripod, and the opperator would deviate under recoil forces quite significantly, compared to the gun being magically fixed in place.
