Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: tarl@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Muzzles of cannons
Message-ID: <1991Apr19.071257.14836@amd.com>
Date: 18 Apr 91 12:07:18 GMT
References: <1991Apr18.032433.21674@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 30
Approved: military@amd.com


From: tarl@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)


In article <1991Apr18.032433.21674@amd.com>, khai@adi.com (Sao Khai Mong) writes:
> On the muzzle of certain guns and howitzers, there is a
> hammerhead-like attachment present.  What is the purpose of it and why
> do certain guns need it and others not?

The hammerhead attachement is a muzzle brake, which vents some of the exhaust
gasses along the sides rather than in the same direction the projectile is
fired. This somewhat reduces the recoil of the weapon. This reduction in
recoil is at the expense of some range and some accuracy.

The question on whether a gun needs it or not is based on how much recoil
you are willing to tolerate. In small human carried (hunting) rifles, this
brake is rarely present. In larger rifles (e.g., non-tripod .50BMG) it is
almost a requirement. For tank mounted weapons, the question would be what
the effect of recoil is on the tank itself; wear and tear on the turret
mechanisms and (for the M1Ax tanks), the effect of rocking the tanks while
in motion (I presume severe rocking could cause a tread to fall off).

No reference, this is largely a compilation of what I researched when
buying my .50 rifle, where the effects of recoil dominate the usability
of the weapon.

--
Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@vos.stratus.com
Marlboro, Mass.		Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.