It should have a referance for the page number in the article. The information about the weapon is in one of the very small boxes on the left of the page with writing in them. There is some more information about the weapon (such as length and loaded weight) but I see that hasn't been put in to the article. 22.214.171.124 15:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC) (P.S this is Diaboy but the bleeding login has broken on me AGAIN)
The dude is right, on the image on halopedia, its really small, but if you have really good eyesight, you can read it. AJ 17:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been having another read of that little box, and there does seem to be some interesting information. It might just be me reading it wrong because it is so small, but the muzzle velocity and energy seem very high for such a small size of ammunition; the muzzle energy appears to be stated at 30,000 joules, which is roughly the same as 14.5mm ammunition, which is over twice the diameter. This means it must be leaving the barrel at incredibly velocity, and if you look closely, the dialog looks like it says '15k mps' which is over ten times faster than any standard ammunition! I am not going to change the article, however, as I should probably wait for conformation of those figures from other people (due to its difficulty in being read). Diaboy 126.96.36.199 11:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This weapon is technically incorrectly named, it should be called the 'Special Application Scoped Rifle'. I've changed what I can but I can't change the title of the page. Diaboy 188.8.131.52 13:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The energy of the round on the page of the HGN must be wrong. It states that the energy is about 30500 (it is fairly difficult to read) however, this gives a mass of 0.27g for the bullet; the energy must be out by a factor of about ten. Funilly enough, even with the round at 0.27g, the energy is still larger than a .50 browning round.
If it is correct though, this means the round cannot be made of any dense materials. That makes very little sense, however. Diaboy 09:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The best weapon in multiplayer?
I was not aware that this was in multiplayer, and I don't think it is.
In the article it says that because this weapon lacks a muzzle brake it has higher recoil than if it had one, this would not be the case; the weapon is a gauss gun so there would be no excess propellant gases for the muzzle brake to redirect backwards to reduce recoil
what recoil gauss technolgy effectively has no recoil you could fire a slug the size of a rocket with no recoil for the user
Gugh, why do people keep thinking this? Magnetically propelled weaponry HAS RECOIL. Go look up conservation of momentum. The coils push the slug, an the slug pushes the coils in the opposite direction.
A little confused
In the encyclopedia it says that this weapon fires a round at 49,212 fps. Thats about mach 44, although our current railgun can fire a round at mach 7, does that make sense?
Yes, more or less. It's five hundred years in the future, and Orbital Defense Stations fire rounds at 'a significant fraction of the speed of light'. It's hardly unreasonable to see this thing shooting a small projectile at that speed.Didactic Angel 00:18, 21 October 2012 (EDT)
I did some mathematics regarding its muzzle energy. I assumed that, since from descriptions it seems to fire a tungsten penetrator round (not dissimilar to the DU penetrators used in anti-tank rounds), the projectile would be very long for a .21 calibre projectile. So the weight of the projectile would be perhaps a third of a pound. My mathematics states that, at 15,000 metres per second, it'd have a muzzle energy of roughly 15,000,000 joules. For comparison, a high-grain .50 BMG round has about 15,000 joules of force. That's a difference of one thousand times. I'm a little doubtful about putting that figure on the page, though, since 15,000,000 joules is extraordinarily high - as in, enough to take out a Scorpion tank in one hit, or to punch through the hull of a UNSC Frigate. Can anyone check my maths here?Didactic Angel 00:18, 21 October 2012 (EDT)
Railgun or coilgun
Just reading in the halo wars 2 the in game informations says that its a portable rail gun. Is this just a mistake on the part 343 or is there both a coilgun and railgun versions of this weapon :/
This is factually incorrect, the weapons are not recoilless as they follow the laws of physics (also why would a variant with an enhanced recoil buffer exist if they didn't have recoil?) What was the source of the incorrect "recoilless" designation
- See here. The real-world variant is also not recoilless, but is called such due to the much-reduced recoil its design features. This is much the same-the lack of a chemical propellant also exiting the barrel reduces the recoil significantly. And sources often trump real-world science here because, well, it is science fiction. The NOVA bomb, for instance, cannot realistically work the way it's described.--D9328 (talk) 11:40, May 28, 2019 (EDT)d9328
Yes I'm aware of the real world definition of a recoilless rifle
A recoilless rifle is a specific type of weapon, the modern definition of which precludes magnetic accelerator weapons. A "recoilless rifle" is not just a "rifle without recoil" A magnetic acceleration weapon still generates recoil when firing (despite popular myth)
Even if we assume that in the context of Halo weapons a "recoilless rifle" or carbine isn't a "recoilless rifle" in the traditional sense, but more generally a small arms weapon design to have little/no felt recoil, this doesn't seem to apply to the M99.
In the Graphic Novel where it first appears there doesn't appear to be a mention of it being "recoilless" (I can't be 100% sure since the text under the name is basically too small to be readable) Moreover Johnson(?) is shown firing the M99 from a bipod standing braced against a table (in such a way that implies it has recoil)
In Contact Harvest no mention is made of the M99 being a recoilless rifle (in fact it's mention Johnson "lowers [M99] onto its shock absorbing armature" which seems to imply he intends to use the mount on the hornet he's on to absorb the recoil of firing rather than his shoulder, why would a recoilless rifle need a shock absorbing armature?)
In Bad Blood when the M99 is introduced (ch 17) Forbeck refers to it as both a gauss rifle and a railgun in the same paragraph, while railguns and coilguns share some similarities they are not the same.
Later (ch 21) Buck says (or thinks) "even with a recoilless anti-material rifle like the M99" (this is I believe the first time the term is used)
In universe it's possible Buck has never used an M99 and falsely believe it to be a recoilless rifle. Out of universe it's possible Forbeck got false info referring to it as a recoilless rifle or called it recoilless himself because he doesn't understand how Newton's 3rd law applies to magnetic accelerator weapons.
In Silent Storm the M99 isn't called a "recoilless" rifle but it is incorrectly claimed that it would not generate recoil (kind of unfortunate so much time is spent on the accurate description of orbital mechanics and then to forget newton's 3rd law). It's possible that it was meant to imply simply that the M99 would have less recoil than a traditional firearm firing a comparable projectile
In Halo Wars 2 a more advanced modified version the M99A2S3 is introduced
No mention is made of it or the original M99 being "recoilless"
One of the upgrades is an "inertia buffer" which designer Jeremy Cook described as "hightec recoil management" If the gun was already "recoilless" why did it need an upgrade to reduce recoil?
Here technically the M99A2S3 variant might be called "recoilless" because it literally has less recoil than the standard M99, but I doubt that's the way it was intended (and further, even with the recoil buffer we don't know that it has no/negligible recoil, just less than the standard M99)
Counterpoint: "The H4 Railgun is called the "ASYMMETRICAL RECOILLESS CARBINE 920"
The Railgun is not the same weapon as the M99
- M99 is a coilgun - Railgun is a railgun - ACR90 Railgun may have additional advancements to actually reduce recoil and make it "recoilless" (one rail that is more massive or able to move freely so that recoil energy is dissipated "outwards" by the movement of the rail rather than "backwards" in a standard weapon, which might also explain the "asymmetric" part of the name) - Most likely whoever named it still believed the myth that magnetic weapons don't generate recoil (also recoilless carbine makes for a good acronym ARC)
Some (newer) sources refer to it as "recoilless" (or otherwise imply it has little/no recoil) but other sources imply or state outright that it has recoil (HW2). Until a more definitive answer is give as to whether the weapon is actually classified as "recoilless" I definitely don't think it should have "recoilless" in the infobox, possibly there should be a mention of it being called "recoilless" in the trivia section.
- To me, at least, the IDing of it as a recoilless by Buck would stand as a good citation under our standards. Even if Forbeck and others got the false impression that it was recoilless from here(and you've rather convinced me on the latter part),the fact that it was stated in a book means that we have to include it. This wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened(I recommend you check out the Halo Encyclopedia incident), and the standard set by that event is even if the information in a piece of canon media was initially sourced from a false claim/misinformation on Halopedia, its inclusion in the canon work means that we must include it here. I don't like it any more than you do, but thew alternative is that the wiki can decide to ignore parts of canon on a whim. We're not the canon makers. We're just the catalogers. Though this should probably be mentioned in a note on the page or something. I'd recommend contacting someone higher up in the wiki and more versed in lore for a final opinion.--D9328 (talk) 16:19, May 28, 2019 (EDT)d9328