Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Khand-e

The Small Arms Thread, Part 8: 2018; ICSR to be replaced by US Army with interim 15mm Revolver Cannon.

Recommended Posts

   Interesting part is soldiers experience with it - much more sensetive to durt, early corrosion of muzzle device and some parts of action, if not payed good attention. Very soft recoil, better fire mode selector. Hard to assemble. 

   Video (in the end) also shows guts of this rifle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/06/09/leaked-kalashnikov-concerns-new-rpk-400-dual-feed-5-45mm-saw/

   Hmm, Sturgeon, AFAIK RPK-400 is a name for modernized RPK-74, the second LMG on the photo (wich was made for Tokar-2 programm) have unknown designation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking about Spaceballs...

 

Remember that costume?

L2H4p.jpg

 

Apperently it is/was used several years ago

98bD6.jpg

 

And here is otvaga member found photos of helmet for this things... with interesting paintjob.

E5G0U.jpg

 

9HLXD.jpg

 

dgJAK.jpg

 

zEFe1.jpg

 

yViQn.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look guys, the Tavor can hit a target at 200m!

 



Well, to hit an e-type silhouette 100% of the time, you need to maintain something like 9.5 MOA. And I note that Tim missed a couple of times...

 

Now, sure, the kind of shooting he's doing relies more on the patience and skill of the shooter than it does the rifle's mechanical accuracy... But then why bother saying you're "really pleased" with the rifle's accuracy at that point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the Forgotten Weapons Gerat06 video again the other day, and I started thinking about that rod sticking out from the bolt carrier. How come the CETME and HK rifles have the rod on top and pointing forwards, instead of rearwards? I don't think they would have had a problem fitting a recoil spring behind the bolt carrier group either way.

 

http://s33.postimg.org/7zaibaljj/RDBB.jpg

Do you think it could have anything to do with the fact that they really wanted that charging handle manual of arms? By putting the rod forwards, you get this nice cylindrical channel where you can put your charging handle, which makes your big rifle works just like the submachinegun you're already used to. I like this explanation, because it seems reasonable that a design to replace the obsolete bolt action rifles to work alongside not-yet-obsolete 9 mm submachineguns would be designed to have ergonomics matching the submachineguns, to reduce training time for ww3.

If I'm not mistaken, quite a few WW2 era SMG's are reloaded by 1) locking bolt open manually 2) inserting magazine 3) letting bolt forward. The G3 is reloaded the same way. Note that this is one more operation than for example an m1 thompson, m1 carbine, stg 44, ak or other no bolt hold open firearms with detachable magazines. I haven't tried but I don't think you're supposed to load a G3 with the bolt closed. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

On the other hand, it seems weird that they would value quick and easy reloads so lowly that they didn't just ditch the old manual of arms and made their rifle easier to manipulate (adding, for example, a bolt hold open, which would go well with magazines that are really hard to insert when fully loaded). That rifle could have a 9 mm SMG to go with it, using the same simple manual of arms. Unless there's some benefit with the extra weight of the taller receiver and charging handle assembly, the design of the CETME/g3 seems a little weird, considering where it came from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything you add to the rear of bolt carrier is going to need space inside the receiver and/or stock to recoil.  People with HK already complain about getting hit in the face by the hump at the top of the stock/receiver interface.  So you are either going to: 1) move the bump to the rear and make the face-whacking worse; 2) increase the length of pull to orangutan lengths; or 3) raise the comb and increase the offset between the bore and the sights.

Now HK could move the cocking handle to the rear and even shorten the forward carrier extension.  However, you would then be opening the receiver to the ingress of debris.  And there would be the off-chance of cases getting caught in the top of the receiver as the carrier cycles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if they put the recoil spring around the rod and mounted the rod in line with the bore, then the G3 wouldn't have the hump. If you let the recoil spring and the rear of the bolt carrier group recoil into the stock then I'm quite sure you could fit it in there without having to draft orangutans.

Of course, then you wouldn't have any paratrooper variations of your rifle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the Forgotten Weapons Gerat06 video again the other day, and I started thinking about that rod sticking out from the bolt carrier. How come the CETME and HK rifles have the rod on top and pointing forwards, instead of rearwards? I don't think they would have had a problem fitting a recoil spring behind the bolt carrier group either way.

 

http://s33.postimg.org/7zaibaljj/RDBB.jpg

Do you think it could have anything to do with the fact that they really wanted that charging handle manual of arms? By putting the rod forwards, you get this nice cylindrical channel where you can put your charging handle, which makes your big rifle works just like the submachinegun you're already used to. I like this explanation, because it seems reasonable that a design to replace the obsolete bolt action rifles to work alongside not-yet-obsolete 9 mm submachineguns would be designed to have ergonomics matching the submachineguns, to reduce training time for ww3.

If I'm not mistaken, quite a few WW2 era SMG's are reloaded by 1) locking bolt open manually 2) inserting magazine 3) letting bolt forward. The G3 is reloaded the same way. Note that this is one more operation than for example an m1 thompson, m1 carbine, stg 44, ak or other no bolt hold open firearms with detachable magazines. I haven't tried but I don't think you're supposed to load a G3 with the bolt closed. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

On the other hand, it seems weird that they would value quick and easy reloads so lowly that they didn't just ditch the old manual of arms and made their rifle easier to manipulate (adding, for example, a bolt hold open, which would go well with magazines that are really hard to insert when fully loaded). That rifle could have a 9 mm SMG to go with it, using the same simple manual of arms. Unless there's some benefit with the extra weight of the taller receiver and charging handle assembly, the design of the CETME/g3 seems a little weird, considering where it came from.

 

Welcome to SH Miroslav!

 

The return spring configuration of the CETME/HK family was changed from the configuration of the STG-45 during the 1950s.  At that time the Mauser team that had been responsible for the development of the Gerat 06 and STG-45 were essentially prisoners of the French government who worked on arms development for France.  You'll note that at this time all the French tank designs look suspiciously panther-y as well.  Russians and Americans got all the rocket scientists, the French got all the gun and tank designers.

 

The French wanted to use the STG-45 roller retarded blowback action design in a small, light and compact carbine with a folding stock.  Obviously, you cannot have a folding stock if the return spring is in the stock.

 

You are mistaken about the manual of arms on WW2 era SMGs.  They fire from an open bolt, so that notch for the charging handle in the MP-40 is not to lock the bolt back to inspect the chamber or whatever.  That notch acts as a safety.

 

The notch to allow the charging handle to be locked back was only added to the CETME design after German troop trials.  You can definitely load a G3 with the bolt closed, although with some magazines it might require a bit of a grunt and some elbow grease.

 

According to the HK Pro forums, and this answer apparently comes straight from the engineers at Oberndorf, a last round hold open on the G3 would not be a good idea.  The G3's trunnion doesn't like having its ass open to the wind, as they're fairly sensitive to grit.  A last round hold open was added to FBI 10mm MP-5s, but these were intended to be used by hostage rescue teams; presumably indoors rather than on the steppe of Eastern Europe fighting the rooskis.  The problem of shit blowing into the action may have been smaller.

 

The rare HK G41 also had a last round hold open, and that was intended for shooting at the Rooskis out on the steppe.  Perhaps HK had figured out some work-around for the problem by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      There are many who feel that the 5.56 NATO is a superlative rifle round. Much has been said about larger alternatives to 5.56, such as various 6.5mm and 6.8mm rounds among others. Less has been said about smaller rounds. Off the top of my head, I can recall that there was a German 4.6x36mm round, used in the HK36, and the British 4.85x49mm round. Neither of these rounds managed to gain widespread acceptance. My knowledge of the voodoo that is ballistics is somewhat limited, so I'm uncertain as to whether these failures were caused by flaws with the rounds themselves, or because they were below some lower limit of effective bullet size, beyond which performance decreases rapidly. Could we see a resurgence of these concepts in the future, or do they represent an evolutionary dead-end?
×