# Recoilless Technologies IPO - Melb co. creates new weapon



## sam76 (30 January 2006)

My mate sent me this today. IPO will be at $1 a share

If it proves to be viable this could technology could change the face of modern warfare.

it kind of reminds me of MST with it's quickfire weapon technology.


Melbourne firm to revolutionise weapons technology
By Brendan Nicholson
January 30, 2006

A SMALL Melbourne company has made a breakthrough in weapons technology that could dramatically change the pace of modern warfare.

Polish immigrant Richard Giza has realised a lifetime dream by developing a system that removes the recoil when a rifle is fired. His company, Recoilless Technologies, will demonstrate its invention in Melbourne on Wednesday.

Company director and defence analyst Ross Babbage said it could have enormous implications for the international armaments industry.

A weapon without recoil means an end to the bruising thump on the shoulder provided by high-powered rifles, but the technology can also be applied to tanks and big naval guns.

Professor Babbage said that because a tank relied on its weight to stop it rocketing backwards each time it fired its gun, a much lighter tank could carry a bigger gun. That meant that more tanks could be carried on transport planes, getting more firepower into action quickly.

Retired Australian Army major-general Peter Dunn said the technology was revolutionary. "It has the potential to fundamentally transform the way ballistic weapons are deployed. Weapons will become lighter and much more mobile on the battlefield."

If the technology can be transferred to heavier weapons, it will also mean that more powerful guns can be fitted to ships and even aircraft.

Professor Babbage said he was amazed by the technology. "At first I was as cynical as hell. But it is clear now that this will allow a modern army to get a lot more firepower into the front line very quickly." He said the technology reduced the muzzle velocity and therefore the range of the rifle by less than 5 per cent.

He said the company was in discussions with Australian defence scientists and a major arms manufacturer from an allied country. He declined to name the company at this stage.

He said money raised in a share float would help fund the next stage of development. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...pons-technology/2006/01/29/1138469607153.html)


----------



## etrader1 (31 January 2006)

*Re: Recoilless Technologies IPO-  Melb co. creates new weapon*

sam,

Looks very interesting and very promising indeed. Just be a bit careful though as the company had some issues with ASIC before. Please see http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic_pu...stors+offered+shares+or+a+refund?openDocument

Would keep a eye on this one.

Cheers!


----------



## sam76 (13 March 2006)

*Re: Recoilless Technologies IPO-  Melb co. creates new weapon*

I got this from RTI website.


The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) in July 2002 expressed concerns that RTI and its Directors had breached certain provisions of the Corporations Act during the period 1 July 2000 to 21 March 2002 in relation to fundraising activities. RTI had received advice from its previous advisers that they would be able to raise funds in the manner in which they did during that period, however, as the ASIC outlined, this was not the case. Since the ASIC understood that RTI has received misguided advice, RTI was only requested to enter into an Enforceable Undertaking. 

The Enforceable Undertaking simply required RTI to provide further disclosure to those people from who they had received money and give them an opportunity to receive their investment back. Over 80% of the investors elected to leave their investment with RTI, with half of the remaining investors misunderstanding the ASIC request and inadvertently requesting their investment back. These investors subsequently re-invested their moneys with RTI. 

RTI has fully complied with the requirements of the Enforceable Undertaking and have not sought to take any action against their previous advisers notwithstanding subsequent advice to do so.



Anyone else watching this one?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (14 March 2006)

*Re: Recoilless Technologies IPO-  Melb co. creates new weapon*

If this technology really worked, wouldn't the US simply have 'borrowed' it (Ie stole the technology and killed the company founders  : )

Like the article says, US spends $450b a year on Defence, if they don't have it, then it doesn't exist, just my opinion, 

Although it is possible (though unlikely) that a group of Melbourne based Chaps have managed on a budget of $1m to create a revolutionary weapons technology which the US with its $450b simply couldn't do.


----------



## sam76 (1 October 2008)

Just been checking out these guys.

Apparaently they are still around.

Technology is pretty cool and it looks like they are aiming for a NASDAQ listing versoon (according to sept newsletter)

Here's their website.

http://rticl.com/html/home.html


----------



## Ageo (1 October 2008)

I remember seeing these guys at the sydney shot show a few yrs back. Technology seemed good but their IPO obviously fell through at that time. As others have mentioned this technology would have been snapped up by the U.S and other big governments long time ago (its already being implemented with some modern waepons today).


----------



## mrgroundwork (2 October 2008)

it really makes no sense that they would take their company public if they had such a revolutionary product... why not iron out a deal with a big defense contractor or government and keep the millions for themselves... 

its pretty much a scam in my opinion... id be very careful...


----------



## deadset (2 October 2008)

I thought this has already been done with artillitry a long time ago.  There was some gun designer genius who got bumped off after he proposed a huge recoiless gun that could shoot great distances, he took it to the Americans, then he took it to Saddam, then he wound up dead.  His designs are used already in all field howitzers.

Lightweight self propelled big guns that are able to fit in the back of aircraft are sought after by alot of armies worldwide right now.  So if there's any merit in this then I'm sure it would have taken off.  Also heavier calibre assault rifles that are also accurate would be snapped up for sure if it was true.  Something in a 7.62x51 that is able to be held on target accurately during automatic fire mode is something sorely lacking in the inventories.

Basically a graphic with no detail on a website screams dodgy, we need to see a working model inflicting carnage before our short attention spans are even queried.  Lets see a lightweight howitzer or heavy calibre rifle.


----------



## Nyden (2 October 2008)

Sorry lads; but this thread *is* 2 years old?


----------



## Pat (2 October 2008)

> Melbourne firm to revolutionise weapons technology
> By Brendan Nicholson
> January 30, 2006
> 
> ...



What a silly dream.


----------



## Ageo (2 October 2008)

Pat said:


> What a silly dream.




why do u say that?


----------



## Pat (3 October 2008)

I can think of much better life long dreams than realising a more efficient killing machine. 

Each to their own.


----------



## deadset (3 October 2008)

Pat, I honestly like your sentiment.
We need open markets and a technological edge in these matters, that's the reality.


----------



## Ageo (4 October 2008)

Pat said:


> I can think of much better life long dreams than realising a more efficient killing machine.
> 
> Each to their own.




I agree with the warfare part but what about the millions of target shooters and hunters that could benefit from it? especially the people that have severe disabilities where recoil is a major issue.


----------

