Talk:Blowback (firearms)/Archives/2022

Dynamite has never been used as propellant.

In the first sentence of the second section "principles of operation" it claims that in large artillery weapons, gunpowder OR EVEN DYNAMITE is used as a propellant to accelerate a projectile with expanding gasses. This is completely false and preposterous as any high explosive detonated inside a gun barrel would destroy the weapon. Propellant charges need to burn slowly to accelerate the projectile and not detonate like a high explosive. 2600:1010:B12F:C93D:8072:3EDC:5006:2BA6 (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

You're likely right, and I've searched the given reference on Google Books and found it has no mention of 'dynamite' anywhere. Per wikiblame I see the reference to dynamite was added in this diff without any explanation. Fixed. --Nanite (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Blowback is a Lie!

Blowback is a Lie!

For about a year there has been a term circulating in the Internet, the term is “Blowback”. Nobody has ever heard of it, or knows what this is supposed to be. Is it a lie or does “Blowback” really do exist, meaning that we were unknowing all these years?

A “Blowback” operated firearm is supposed to be a form of self loading firearm with a fixed barrel, we all know als recoil operated. Weapons like Walther PPk, the Uzi, the G3 and others. This is supposed to be, because these weapons will work with blank firing adapters. By the way these adapters are muzzle diameter limitations that cause a back pressure that makes the firearms self loading mechanism work with black cartridges.

On a locked breech gun with slide locked only by springtention and the inertia of its mass, a self loading can not be achieved with a black firing adapter (Walther P38, FN High Power, TT-33 Tokarev, Ultrastar and others). Only these guns are supposed to be recoil operated.

One has to consider that there is a technical difference between Walther PPK and Walther P38. But every shooter knows that. He just named it differently. The PPK is a recoil operated and only locks by springtention and the inertia of the slide mass and the P38 is recoil operated with a tilting block lock. And there are mentions of “Blowback” in gun literature before the days of the internet. But only to be found in old military and police books.

The name “Blowback” is real.

But from a technical terming standpoint it does not matter if a weapon works with or without a blank firing adapter. All these weapons work according to the same physical principle of recoil. The fact that these weapons work with black cartridges does not justify to say, that they are excluded from the principle of recoil. The principle of recoil is a physical law. If you name it “recoil” or “pressure”, it's simply the same!

I own several pistols that are “gas delayed” and locked by springtension and the inertia of the slide mass. I know for a fact that the H&K P7 has a gasport. There gas is tapped to keep the bolt shut with the gas pressure. This is happening via a gas rod, until the bullet has left the muzzle. Only when the pressure has dropped, the slide will open drived by the recoil impulse. The technical background is that if the slide opens too fast a fireball will come out of the ejection port. If there would be a difference between “pressure” and “recoil” these weapons would not work at all! Vektor CP1, Norinco 77b and H&K P7 are proving that the differentiation between recoil operation and blowback operation is a Lie!

Blank firing guns for example do not have recoil. They are using the “back pressure” to cycle the slide back. The back pressure is dependent on several factors like the muzzle bore diameter. If one really wants one could name these weapons “Back Pressure Operated”. But only guns that are intentionally made to only fire blanks.

Has anyone of you ever heard of “Blow Back Principle”? It's just nonsense. If a projectile with a mass of x and a velocity a y is leaving a barrel, a certain recoil impulse is developed. If there would be “Blow Back” and “recoil” in addition, there would be two forces willing to open the slide of an Walther PPK. If this would be the case the slide would open way too fast before the Bullet could leave the muzzle, the pressure would remain too high and a fireball would shoot out of the ejection port.

I admit I was a bit mean in the text above by telling you that there are some mentions of a “Blow Back Operation” in literature, that may unsettled you a bit. But I assure you there is counter proof. You’ve not been unknowing and stuipid. In a book there is a Walther P38 described as “blow back”. This proves that the terms “Blow Back” and recoil mean the exact same thing. There is no difference.

Hecker & Koch manufactured the P7 as a recoil operated gun. The engineers were not to stupid to not understand firearm operations!

Conclusion: Either there is a person feeling very important lately because he thinks he knows something others don’t. Or some shooters have fallen for a hoax and this “person” has the fun of his life by watching the internet riddling his theory.

The term “Blow Back” exists. But the differentiation between “blowback operation” and recoil operation is a Lie! A thing like this just doesn't exist. The usage of the term “blowback” is confusing and is no longer in use for a reason.

Reteid-Snah (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

This text is total nonsense, let me explain why.

For about a year there has been a term circulating in the Internet, the term is “Blowback”. Nobody has ever heard of it, or knows what this is supposed to be. Is it a lie or does “Blowback” really do exist, meaning that we were unknowing all these years?

The term blowback is as old as the first automatic firearms. The fact that you don't heard of it yet speak more against you. This logic is called A NESCIRE AD NON ESSE and its a well known Fallacy.

A “Blowback” operated firearm is supposed to be a form of self loading firearm with a fixed barrel, we all know als recoil operated. Weapons like Walther PPk, the Uzi, the G3 and others. This is supposed to be, because these weapons will work with blank firing adapters. By the way these adapters are muzzle diameter limitations that cause a back pressure that makes the firearms self loading mechanism work with black cartridges.

The fact that these weapon work with blank adapters does matter, because it shows that they will work without the recoil-impulse. Its a common practice in physics to remove forces to find the source for a certain movement. If you remove the recoil-impulse caused by the movement of the bullet and the gun still works, its obviously not recoil operated. You you claim that a bulb is powered by a certain cable and you remove that cable and the blub is still on, that cable could not have powered it.

On a locked breech gun with slide locked only by springtention and the inertia of its mass, a self loading can not be achieved with a black firing adapter (Walther P38, FN High Power, TT-33 Tokarev, Ultrastar and others). Only these guns are supposed to be recoil operated.

The breech of blowback operated firearms is not locked. Its free to move, this is how these guns work. (I know the exception of the Sig MKMO, and its real delayed system.)

But from a technical terming standpoint it does not matter if a weapon works with or without a blank firing adapter. All these weapons work according to the same physical principle of recoil. The fact that these weapons work with black cartridges does not justify to say, that they are excluded from the principle of recoil. The principle of recoil is a physical law.

It does matter if a gun will work with and without a blank firing adapter, because this is the experiment to see, if its gas operated or recoil driven. Yes blowback is a form of gas operation, because the gas pressure will push the case rearwards against the breechface. And the gas will do that no matter if its trapped behind a bullet for some time ore partially trapped by a blank firing adapter. We have to categorize weapons and what way is better then a simple experiment.

If you name it “recoil” or “pressure”, it's simply the same!

Pressure and Recoil are obviously not the same. Please read at least the Wikipedia articles first.

I own several pistols that are “gas delayed” and locked by springtension and the inertia of the slide mass. I know for a fact that the H&K P7 has a gasport. There gas is tapped to keep the bolt shut with the gas pressure. This is happening via a gas rod, until the bullet has left the muzzle. Only when the pressure has dropped, the slide will open drived by the recoil impulse. The technical background is that if the slide opens too fast a fireball will come out of the ejection port. If there would be a difference between “pressure” and “recoil” these weapons would not work at all! Vektor CP1, Norinco 77b and H&K P7 are proving that the differentiation between recoil operation and blowback operation is a Lie!

No, you got the action of the Heckler & Koch P7 totally wrong. The gas will try to open the slide and close the slide at the same time, because two pistons are involved fighting each other movement direction. The first piston in the case pushing against the breechface the second is the gas cylinder tiring to keep the slide shut. But the case has the larger surface the gas can work against, so the slide is opening but slowly. If the gas in the cylinder would be stronger, the slide could be kept shut but then the system will lack any force to open the slide, when the bullet would have left the muzzle. The weapon won't cycle. The recoil impulse of a bullet that has already left the muzzle can not move the slide. This is technical impossible and has proven by highspeed footage of the H&K P7 cycling.

Blank firing guns for example do not have recoil. They are using the “back pressure” to cycle the slide back. The back pressure is dependent on several factors like the muzzle bore diameter. If one really wants one could name these weapons “Back Pressure Operated”. But only guns that are intentionally made to only fire blanks.

Could you further explain, were the difference lies between a real gun using blank round and a blank firing adapter and a purposely build blank gun? Because technically they are the same.

Has anyone of you ever heard of “Blow Back Principle”? It's just nonsense.

Are you trying to use a ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM in conjunction with a A NESCIRE AD NON ESSE Fallacy? The fact that you don't have heard of something does not mean it does not exists. This does not change if you involve more people.

If a projectile with a mass of x and a velocity a y is leaving a barrel, a certain recoil impulse is developed. If there would be “Blow Back” and “recoil” in addition, there would be two forces willing to open the slide of an Walther PPK.

• Yes there are several breech forces involved they are:
• 1. Primer blowout, used in primer actuated guns
• 2. Case stretching, used in case actuated guns
• 3. blowback, used in blowback operated guns (the ones you try to deny)
• 4. recoil, used in recoil operated guns

The difference between blowback and recoil is the Frame of reference. Blowback can not move a slide locked to a barrel relative to the frame of a pistol, this is why recoil operated pistols will not cycle while firing blank cartridges. Only recoil can move a slide locked to a barrel in relation to the pistols slide. Recoil operated guns has to be practically converted into blowbacks to work in conjunction with blanks.

If this would be the case the slide would open way too fast before the Bullet could leave the muzzle, the pressure would remain too high and a fireball would shoot out of the ejection port.

This "fireball" that will come out of the ejection port, does is consist of recoil or of pressure(d) gas? Its clearly gas that gets in you face if an out of battery happens, not recoil. Gas wants to expand anywhere and does so were it could. The gas in a firearm is no exception. Its not intelligent or knows were do drive the bullet and were to drive the bolt, is does so because they oppose the least resistance, the lighter bullet opposes less and the heavy bolt opposes more, this is why the bullet will move faster, not sooner as highspeed rotated proves. Recoil comes on topto the already existing gas pressure later.

In a book there is a Walther P38 described as “blow back”. This proves that the terms “Blow Back” and recoil mean the exact same thing. There is no difference.

No it does not proof that. You seem to mix up Human science with Natural science, digging out some kind of book, god know were you found such a piece with this kind of statement, does not neglect a physical experiment. The experiment is simple: Does a supposed recoil operated firearm work with out recoil, if it does its not recoil operated. (I know you can design complicated frame fixed boosters, to make the gas imitate the recoil by blowing the barrel backwards.)

Conclusion: Either there is a person feeling very important lately because he thinks he knows something others don’t. Or some shooters have fallen for a hoax and this “person” has the fun of his life by watching the internet riddling his theory. The term “Blow Back” exists. But the differentiation between “blowback operation” and recoil operation is a Lie! A thing like this just doesn't exist. The usage of the term “blowback” is confusing and is no longer in use for a reason.

My conclusion is, you have fallen for a hoax by yourself or you lack basic understanding of natural science especially physics.

My sources are:

• Engineering Design Handbook - Gun Series - Automatic Weapons by United States Army Materiel Command
• Hatcher's Notebook, A Standard Reference Book for, Shooters, Gunsmiths, Ballistics, Historians, Hunter and Collectors by Julian S. Hatcher
• The Machine Gun Vol. IV Design Analysis of Automatic Firing Mechanism by Georg M. Chinn
• Sub-Machine Gun, The Development of Sub-Machine Guns and their Ammunition by Maxim Popenker & Anthony G. Williams
• Smallarms Lexicon and concise Encyclopedia by Chester Mueller, John Olson

RRT877 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

removed sentence in section 'Flywheel delayed blowback'

Just removed the following sentence:

'Another example would be the 3d printed rifle under development by Evan Jones.'

there doesnt seem to be any other mention of this person on wikipedia, so it appears to be irrelevant or selfpromotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.186.118.6 (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)