The caseless ammo I saw, .45 cal, operated more like a miniature rocket and had virtually no recoil (controlled burn), but I suppose if you look at caseless like the old blackpowder variant (explosion) then yes recoil is still there.
What you saw if it had a miniature rocket was a Gyrojet firearm. That's something different than "caseless". Gyrojet ammo actually HAS a metal case containing the propellant, technically - the "case" just gets shot out of the gun along with the bullet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GyrojetCaseless ammo is just regular ammo, without a case. Instead of being held to the bullet with a brass shell, the propellant is mixed with a binding agent so it can be formed into shapes. They otherwise act like normal bullets, including generating the normal amount of recoil.
Modern caseless ammo in development generally doesn't "cook off" much any more, the propellant has been improved to avoid that. In fact, generally caseless ammo doesn't even use regular gunpowder anymore, many of them use a variant of RDX plastic explosive. Static electricity apparently doesn't do much to the current generation of caseless ammo (the primer needs a very specific amperage and voltage to go off), and if tossed in a very hot fire it'll burn instead of explode. And, it's waterproof.
Additionally, most caseless ammo actually has the bullet INSIDE the shaped propellant, so they really can't come apart just by being jostled or bumped. A small initiator charge pushes the bullet out of the propellant block into the barrel, and then the rest of the propellant ignites to push the bullet out of the gun like normal.
Really, the barrier to caseless ammo isn't the technology. It's the cost of changing an entire system to use something different. Unless you can demonstrate a HUGE benefit over cased ammo, most folks aren't going to spend resources to hange the way they've always done things. And while caseless has some advantages, it's not enough to make that justification.
-k