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

Kalashism:

Quote

Poster for the next couple of weeks.

First of all, we will dilute the Germans with an interesting Kalash. And there will be HK21A1, it did not get into the collage.

8VPm-kJrkHg.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSIN orginised a competition in St.Petersburg for SF units.

   GSh-18 appeared:

Q-u0kqSWOP8.jpg

 

Spoiler

LMFlWmsOgvw.jpg

 

sLPhtQkssFA.jpg

 

other pistols:

Spoiler

CY_si8Cy66I.jpg

 

HSA0F0C8H5I.jpg

 

50VvNkabJAI.jpg

 

hyS5UHOIJG4.jpg

 

6yK95TJpKQk.jpg

 

5qwHV0q9mhs.jpg

 

IlgqMdY-00M.jpg

 

Tactical squat:

Spoiler

NJzUO04bCzY.jpg

 

retro:

Spoiler

5j-Sv8cH3oI.jpg

 

Hipster:

Spoiler

D2lN1YRpaDM.jpg

 

vIEDJSkvHd4.jpg

 

rest of pics:

Spoiler

tuCcdYbiMoI.jpg

 

6eUlLF4jMHU.jpg

 

yiiMhhSW6cM.jpg

 

kTQlJ6aW4rw.jpg

 

nZeiKiwm-Xs.jpg

 

FeVOAm9L2UA.jpg

 

0qNwQUHjE28.jpg

 

V2jlHLS4UF8.jpg

 

hB8aKJAdczA.jpg

 

FSImRa883zo.jpg

 

RBxxBI4fhow.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

I think the overall gist is that he thinks that the WWII BAR was somehow an improvement over the original.

 

Like that great bipod it came with.

 

Such a great bipod that virtually no actual combat photos show it in use. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats the advantage of AR-18 style guide rods instead of guide rails? Do they wear less or something. Trying to think if AR-18 could function with 2 rails instead of 2 guiderods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Toimisto said:

Whats the advantage of AR-18 style guide rods instead of guide rails? Do they wear less or something. Trying to think if AR-18 could function with 2 rails instead of 2 guiderods.

 

When an AR-18 is closed up, the two guide rods fit snugly into holes in the trunnion:

kjtCFmf.png
 

And the trunnions are connected at the back, since they are both welded to a common plate.

This means that the movement of the bolt carrier is controlled by the rods, and the rods are hooked into the trunnion at the front and to the plate at the back.  The position and timing of moving parts in the AR-18 is almost completely unaffected by the receiver.  Only the fire control group and magazine rely on the receiver being well-toleranced.

 

Now, according to this book, the sales strategy for the AR-18 was that the trunnion, barrel, and a few other high-precision machined parts would be made in the US or UK, while various other countries could buy a license to manufacture the rifle and would make the other parts.

 

Reading in-between the lines, this was a way to concentrate the important tolerances and quality control into a few parts of the rifle; namely all the parts that would be made in first world countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

I think the overall gist is that he thinks that the WWII BAR was somehow an improvement over the original.

 

Like that great bipod it came with.

I'd be tempted tom instead, point out the rate reducer, and all it's associated issues.  (It was a dumb idea).

7 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Such a great bipod that virtually no actual combat photos show it in use. 

The instant it went from being a "machine rifle" to a half-assed LMG, shit was going pear shaped. 

The USMC had something promising with the cut down ones they messed with in the 20's, whereupon it's potential was promptly ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Toimisto said:

Whats the advantage of AR-18 style guide rods instead of guide rails? Do they wear less or something. Trying to think if AR-18 could function with 2 rails instead of 2 guiderods.

 

In addition to what Collimatrix said, it's worth noting that correctly indexing guide rails is a giant sonnovabitch and requires a lot of skill and technical know how. Guide rods... Not so much (though RSAF Enfield still managed to fuck it up!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

In addition to what Collimatrix said, it's worth noting that correctly indexing guide rails is a giant sonnovabitch and requires a lot of skill and technical know how. Guide rods... Not so much (though RSAF Enfield still managed to fuck it up!).

Nothing is more telling than looking at a tablefull of AR18's and AR180's, and noting the differences.

 

Buy an (original) Armalite for collecting, a Howa for shooting, and a Sterling for parts..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Meplat said:

Nothing is more telling than looking at a tablefull of AR18's and AR180's, and noting the differences.

 

Buy an (original) Armalite for collecting, a Howa for shooting, and a Sterling for parts..


I caught a 1971 International Defense Review on eBay the other week.  It confirmed the Lockheed connection for International sales.  They would also supply the tooling and setup, while ArmaLite would handle QC.  Another interesting comment was that Mauser was looking at buying a license for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2018 at 4:21 PM, D.E. Watters said:


I caught a 1971 International Defense Review on eBay the other week.  It confirmed the Lockheed connection for International sales.  They would also supply the tooling and setup, while ArmaLite would handle QC.  Another interesting comment was that Mauser was looking at buying a license for it.

It was a very promising design, sad it's kind of forgotten now.

The stock was interesting in that you could loosen the single stock screw, pull out the rubber buttpad, then rotate it a quarter-turn (90 degrees) and stow a ziploc baggie with all kinds of spares in there.

It was not foam-filled like the AR-15.

 

The magazines are (were) a stumbling point for some people, but it was absurdly easy to convert an AR-15 mag to work, if one had any semblance of mechanical aptitude.

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?
×