replace the wood with something that won't go bad in space. OTOH, rifles wouldn't be a great choice in an actual deep-space fight, too clumsy, you'd probably do better with a pistol, handgun or PDW.How can I have a Mosin-Nagant or other wood-dominant type rifles working in space?
Actually, simpler firearms should work for a while (read, 100 rounds+) even without lubrication, since one of the standard durability tests for handguns is that, a full go over with degreaser, then put 100 or so through it. Glocks and Springfields seem particularly good for this, and the other standard tests (being frozen, being soaked in mud, being buried in sand, being rolled over by a truck, etc), so the chances are, with or without lubrication, these guns will see you through.Ones we have now? The biggest problem is oil. Guns have to be lubricated and those lubricates boil in vacuum. You might be able to fire a few rounds (provided the rounds had some oxidizer in the powder) before it locked up.
Also, simple and light, but requiring better QC than normal bullets.There's the old Gyrojet weapons, that fired rocket-propelled slugs and were more or less recoilless.
That seems unlikely, the reason being, gyrojets had virtually no recoil, they were mini rocket-launchers after all, not guns.As well as cleaning recoil is going to be a real bitch, even with a Gyrojet gun.
That is flat out silly; weight will vary with gravity but mass and inertia do not – recoil to be no greater wherever you are. In a weightless environment and unanchored the firer will move (slowly) because the gun has generated thrust, otherwise on even a small body the friction in their boots are going to stop them moving as a whole body.As well as cleaning recoil is going to be a real bitch, even with a Gyrojet gun. In Wyndham's The Outward Urge the troops sent out of the monn base are advised to only fire when they have the back against a roock or if lying down.
Try graphite?Ones we have now? The biggest problem is oil.
All smokeless powders have an oxidizer as part of the compound. They could burn efficiently in the sealed chamber without it.Ones we have now? The biggest problem is oil. Guns have to be lubricated and those lubricates boil in vacuum. You might be able to fire a few rounds (provided the rounds had some oxidizer in the powder) before it locked up.
All smokeless powders have an oxidizer as part of the compound. They could burn efficiently in the sealed chamber without it.
The big problem, if you're expecting enter and leave pressure vessels, is ensuring your rounds are not effected by the changes in pressure. Specifically, there's a small amount of air inside any cartridge. In a vacuum, the change of pressure could be enough to unseat the bullet, which would cause a mess.
In addition to reconnaissance equipment, Almaz was equipped with a 23mm Nudelman rapid-fire cannon mounted on the forward belly of the station.[7][8] This self-lubricating cannon was modified from the tail-gun of the Tu-22 bomber and was capable of a theoretical rate of fire of 850 rounds per minute. Each 200 gram projectile flew at a speed of 690 m/s relative to the station.[7][9] To aim the cannon, which was in a fixed mounting, the entire station would be turned to face the threat.
Salyut 3/OPS-2 conducted a successful test firing on a target satellite remotely with the station unmanned due to concerns over excessive vibration and noise.
Microgravity is of minimal concern, it only really affects aiming. Ionised grit might be an issue though, so that will have to go into it.The OP was asking about vacuum adaped firearms, NOT about firearms suitable for microgravity. They are seperate issues.