I was watching an old recorded episode of Mythbusters and they showed a clip where they tried to shoot down trees with machine guns. A Minigun mounted on a Jeep was the last one tested and it didn’t look like it had any recoil at all. How? Why?
Because it’s much heavier in proportion to its projectile than a handgun in the first place and is also mounted on a jeep.
I din’t see the episode but I suspect that the shooter did not have to manage the recoil because it was bolted to the jeep. The jeep was taking all the backward force.
Yeah, the M134 has plenty of recoil, which is why you tend to see them mounted onto heavy, sturdy things like trucks, aircraft, or boats.
Slower guns like the M2, you can see each round and the vibration and recoil from each shots, even on vehicle mounts. I suspect this might be partly what the OP is talking about.
Im assuming its a combination of the round being quite small in comparison, and the rounds firing so quickly its more like a sustained push than seeing individual shots. Also it uses a very different system for feeding rounds - theres no bolt going back and forth.
Otara
Rule of cool – physics works differently for action heroes.
Isn’t some of the energy from the recoil absorbed/converted to motion to move the slide back and chamber another round, as well?
Ooops…didn’t see your post Otara!
To combine your two thoughts, the jeep is essentially part of the gun which makes it even heavier. Mount .40 handgun to a jeep a 4 year old could handle it.
Also, I’d imagine a minigun has a much more sophisticated mechanism for handling recoil then a spring and a lightweight slide then moves back an inch or so.