Popular Mechanics Claims Astronauts Can Carry M16s on the Moon But Quote Unquote With A Catch

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened

originally posted by: buddha
I think it would work very well.
space is a vacuum.
so it would have Mores pressure from the explosion.
the gun powder ! does not need air.

I don't think the debate is whether or not an individual cartridge would ignite and exit the riffle. The problems would manifest in the internal components (how the spring mechanisms re-chamber new rounds), managing recoil, "siting" in riffle where the bullet ballistics are different for the moon's gravity, manipulating the safety/charging handle/forward assist with huge space gloves, basically how to operate the weapon.

It is a weapon designed for terrestrial use. In my opinion no way would soldiers operating on the moon just be issued re-calibrated M-16s for use there. There are enough design challenges where it'd make sense to simply design an entirely different platform for use in space.

pressure from the explosion chambers the next round.
so it works the same!

Video M16 goto 4:22

a reply to: Scapegrace

Something like the Gyrojet would probably have been a great option for the moon. For the purposes of TV show though modifying the M16's was a quick and dirty solution to a problem they didn't know they'd have.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Recoil would send the shooter into orbit?

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I'm not a consistent reader of Popular Mechanics, but over the years I've read a few interesting stories in their publication. When I saw this piece pop up in my phone feed, the title caught my eye, mainly due to the click-bait title.

Astronauts Really Could Carry M16s on the Moon

Without oxygen the gun will not fire.

A bullet being fired is simply a controlled explosion. The explosion is incendiary and therefore requires oxygen.

This had to be an April Fools story...

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Recoil would send the shooter into orbit?

No one is certain, but I linked to chat page where folks had done the math on what recoil forces would be, for average sized person (with extra weight of space gear), on the moon, emptying full magazine.

Their claims were that the soldier wouldn't fly up/back a dramatic distance; the biggest issue would actually be the gyroscopic forces imposed by uneven forces from the recoil that would make the soldier spin out of control.

Remember the movie Armageddon?

Remember when one of the NASA astronauts pulled a gun on Bruce Wills and his friend said “why is there a gun in space!?!?”

member it????

So why do we need a gun in space? Because we all know the Moon Monster will actually have something that works, us..not so much.

Maybe it’s just me, or maybe I should change my User name to GurlthinksWTF!!!

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I'm not a consistent reader of Popular Mechanics, but over the years I've read a few interesting stories in their publication. When I saw this piece pop up in my phone feed, the title caught my eye, mainly due to the click-bait title.

Astronauts Really Could Carry M16s on the Moon

Without oxygen the gun will not fire.

A bullet being fired is simply a controlled explosion. The explosion is incendiary and therefore requires oxygen.

This had to be an April Fools story...

Oxygen is already in the gun powder. Any gun will fire on the moon.
Oxidizer is already there. No need for external oxygen.

nvm

a reply to: TheResidentAlien

I'd forgtten about that weapon. Perhaps a new version could overcome its problems. The low recoil sounds very attractive.

I wonder if an automatic or semiautomatic rifle-caliber recoilless rifle is feasible. The rounds would be bigger than 5.56mm or 7.62mm conventional rounds I imagine, but they might have the same velocity and range due to the lower lunar gravity and vacuum conditions. It couldn't be shoulder fired, i.e., pressed against a shoulder, but the new ability to see what your weapon sight (FWS-I) sees without having to look through it makes that less of a problem.