| Grelber | 04 Mar 2018 1:19 p.m. PST |
Looking to see how you fired a Boys Anti-Tank rifle, I came across a photo of somebody who looks like he is about to fire one from a standing position link (photo in the center). Could you really do this? Is it likely to end badly?
Grelber |
| Grelber | 04 Mar 2018 1:20 p.m. PST |
Looking to see how you fired a Boys Anti-Tank rifle, I came across a photo of somebody who looks like he is about to fire one from a standing position link (photo in the center). Could you really do this? Is it likely to end badly?
Grelber |
| Timbo W | 04 Mar 2018 1:28 p.m. PST |
My Dad said it had a hell of kick, but I don't know if he was shooting it prone or standing. |
| advocate | 04 Mar 2018 1:34 p.m. PST |
I could only see one standing firing pose there – the first picture. And that was surely all it was, a pose. |
| deephorse | 04 Mar 2018 3:00 p.m. PST |
Yes, who knows what he was about to do. Strike a pose, lose an arm? He certainly wasn't aiming at anything on the ground. |
| Major Mike | 04 Mar 2018 3:14 p.m. PST |
There is this WW2 training film by Disney for the Canadians. Some animation and live action. YouTube link |
Frederick  | 04 Mar 2018 3:53 p.m. PST |
I believe that it was only feasible to shoot lying down – as noted, one devil of a kick |
| Windy Miller | 04 Mar 2018 5:25 p.m. PST |
Seeing as the guy holding it is an American soldier during the invasion of Iràq in 2003, and that there is no magazine fitted I think you can safely say he was just posing for a picture. The only way to fire the Boyes is from the prone position. Firstly it's so heavy it's almost impossible to hold it in the aim in any other position, and secondly the recoil is so violent it would probably knock you over. |
 Bobgnar | 04 Mar 2018 5:30 p.m. PST |
Forgotten Weapons has a nice report on the Boys Antitank Rifle, YouTube link all videos on You Tube of Boys shooting show people prone. |
| Wackmole9 | 04 Mar 2018 9:51 p.m. PST |
|
 x42brown | 04 Mar 2018 10:19 p.m. PST |
The weight alone makes firing from the shoulder impractical much less the recall which makes it close to impossible. x42 |
| Simo Hayha | 04 Mar 2018 11:18 p.m. PST |
it can be done. Pretty impractical in my opinion. YouTube link |
| mysteron | 05 Mar 2018 4:16 a.m. PST |
Many of these were mounted on vehicles for a reason . The weight and the recoil. |
| Korvessa | 05 Mar 2018 9:53 a.m. PST |
I'd bet Rambo or Arnie could do it. |
| deephorse | 05 Mar 2018 10:29 a.m. PST |
it can be done Not the same weapon. Seems to be a lot less recoil than in videos of the Boys being fired. So, either he's firing blanks, or the PTRS has a lot less recoil than the Boys. |
| Private Matter | 05 Mar 2018 10:54 a.m. PST |
Back in 1981 I had the opportunity to actually fire a Boyes ATR. I was a Sargent in the USMC at the time so not the overweight out of shape old man that I am today. There is no way I would've attempted to fire that beast in anything but the prone position. After the first shot, I knew I was going to have an aching shoulder for a few days. It hurt but man was it fun. |
| Winston Smith | 05 Mar 2018 11:27 a.m. PST |
A Space Marine could fire it in one hand, while waving a chainsaw in the other. |
| Windy Miller | 05 Mar 2018 2:12 p.m. PST |
The PTRS is semi-automatic so some of the recoil is absorbed by the working parts. The Boys is a bolt action so all of the recoil is absorbed be the firer. Having said that I doubt that either would be particularly pleasant to fire from standing! |
| Dynaman8789 | 07 Mar 2018 6:20 p.m. PST |
> A Space Marine could fire it in one hand, while waving a chainsaw in the other. Or Rambo. |
| Mark 1 | 07 Mar 2018 7:16 p.m. PST |
The PTRS is semi-automatic so some of the recoil is absorbed by the working parts. The Boys is a bolt action so all of the recoil is absorbed be the firer. It is indeed reasonable to suggest that most semi-auto actions will reduce the recoil effects compared to a bolt-action. But in the particulars here neither the assertion that the action of the PTRS absorbed recoil, nor that all the recoil of the Boys was absorbed by the firer, is true in the details. A recoil-operated semi-auto action does indeed use (absorb) recoil forces to cycle the action. But the PTRS was not recoil-operated, but rather a gas-operated semi-auto action. This means expanding gasses, not recoil forces, were used to cycle the action. Gas actions do not absorb recoil. SOME gas actions reduce recoil. Some don't. It depends on details of the design implementation. In the German Mauser G41(M) semi-auto rifle, for example, the gas-operation actually INCREASED the recoil perceived by the shooter, as it tapped the gas off at the muzzle (not somewhere along the barrel). This design choice was taken (AFAIK) so as not to reduce the muzzle velocity of the round. Taking gasses out of the muzzle blast and turning their energy backwards to push the action, meant more perceived recoil, not less. But the PTRS action (the Siminov action) did indeed tap gasses off from the barrel prior to the muzzle, starting the movement of the bolt with energy that might otherwise have gone into pushing the bullet up the barrel (and pushing back against the shooter's shoulder). So in the specific case of this semi-auto design it did reduce recoil. The Boys, on the other hand, did indeed have a technical feature to absorb recoil. So also did the PTRD (the Russian AT rifle designed by Degtyarev). In both cases, even though they were bolt-action rifles, they had mechanisms for the barrel to slide backwards in the mounting against resistance. This absorbed recoil forces before they were transmitted to the firer. Not that it made all that much difference. Both had reputations for being beasts to shoot. -Mark
(aka: Mk 1) |
takes a look at flexible roads made from long-lasting flexible resin.