This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Regarding rocket launchers: I am not sure they can actually fall under this trope. For example the German "Panzerfaust 3" basically has no recoil due to construction.
Phartman: That's the point of "inverse" recoil: weapons that should have a strong kick (shotguns, machine guns et al) rarely do, and weapons that actually have very little at all (RPGs and grenade launchers) kick like a sumbitch. Hollywood gets them switched around all the time.
Quick note about the graviton weapon listed as an exception... I'm afraid a graviton "beam" would be a stream of gravitons (theoretical particle that is responsible for gravitational attraction), which would by definition produce either no kick due to their nature (pulling the gun forward), or recoil forward (which in itself would be a brilliant new concept for a writer to have in his script).
Changed the writeup slightly; blank-firing weapons do produce recoil, since if venting hot gas from a chamber sealed at one end didn't produce thrust in the opposite direction, a rocket engine wouldn't work. The recoil is minimal, but still enough to cycle the weapon's action [though it should be noted some weapons cannot cycle blanks even with a blank-firing adaptor, which is why you'll never see someone firing a SPAS-12 semi-auto in a movie].
Phartman: True, but the perceptible "kick" comes from a projectile leaving the barrel and pushing it backward. So blank weapons have some practical recoil, yes, but we're talking about felt recoil, which is virtually non-existent.
Some Sort Of Troper: Is it just me or does this trope have a lot of aversions for something so prevalent?
Phartman: If you seriously think we've named anything above .0005% of all fiction involving firearms, I'm not going to rain on your parade. But it does say to only list aversions, so any work of fiction involving firearms that you don't see listed here is likely guilty of this. Please read the entries thoroughly.
