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

On 6/29/2018 at 9:32 AM, Willy Brandt said:

On MG4/5 no but the rate of fire is low enough to squeeze singles of.
Also you need the recoil booster so its extracts the casings.

If you look into it it tries to capture the gasses to press the barrel backwards to unlock the bolt.
There is a sort of flash hider in the booster but it directs the flash forward.

You can try to cut down the rate of fire if you make the bolt heavier and use other return springs. There is a 650g Bolt for 1100RPM and a 900g for 800RPM

bg002p38.jpg

 

Yes, the booster creates a space between the muzzle of the barrel and the booster that fills with gas.  The gas pushes the barrel backwards.  The barrel was already retreating backwards, because it is a recoil-operated weapon, but the booster makes it go backwards even faster.  I'm not sure what exactly would happen if the booster were removed; probably the gun would short-stroke, but it might still work, just at a lower rate of fire.  I don't think that the booster is particularly required for extraction, but then the residual chamber pressure is needed for M4s to extract, so maybe the booster adds back-pressure or makes the system cycle quickly enough that there is still blowback pressure.

But there is no rule saying that the muzzle end of the booster has to be that little cup shape.  It could be replaced with a pronged flash hider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2018 at 12:06 AM, Collimatrix said:

 

Yes, the booster creates a space between the muzzle of the barrel and the booster that fills with gas.  The gas pushes the barrel backwards.  The barrel was already retreating backwards, because it is a recoil-operated weapon, but the booster makes it go backwards even faster.  I'm not sure what exactly would happen if the booster were removed; probably the gun would short-stroke, but it might still work, just at a lower rate of fire.  I don't think that the booster is particularly required for extraction, but then the residual chamber pressure is needed for M4s to extract, so maybe the booster adds back-pressure or makes the system cycle quickly enough that there is still blowback pressure.

But there is no rule saying that the muzzle end of the booster has to be that little cup shape.  It could be replaced with a pronged flash hider.

During my time, we had a case of a booster not working correctly and at least in this caseit resulted in a stoppage after the first shot. But don't ask me what exactly happened because I was busy cuddling with my own MG3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35403411_270487573700362_779636785567865

Нарукавник - 4 ? )))  "Oversleeve  - 4" - ?)) This is a joke?  Or the real name of the sight is specially changed in the photo editor to a fictional one?

Share this post


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

 

Spoiler

35403411_270487573700362_779636785567865

 

Нарукавник - 4 ? )))  "Oversleeve  - 4" - ?)) This is a joke?  Or the real name of the sight is specially changed in the photo editor to a fictional one?

Sounds normal to me. There are Russian weapon systems with stranger name than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've heard that the USAF will add the GAU-5A to the kits of it's crew since they think that a pistol is insufficient for personal defense in hostile territory (probably rightfully so).

 

I'm definitively not too knowledgeable in small arms, but isn't a CAR-15 variant way too big to serve as a PDW (and possibly needlessly heavy as well)?

Especially if you have to stuff it in the ejection kit.

 

What where the criteria for choosing the GAU-5A instead of a proper PDW like a P90 or an MP7 (or one of their American equivalent that I don't know of)?

The only thing I can think of is that the GAU use 5,56 while the others use very specific ammo, but it's not like this weapons will have to be resupplied on the field (the crew just need to have enough ammo to survive until the rescue team arrive) or very often at all (it stay in the kit until the ammo are past their expiration date).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the answer.

I guess that since you can make it fit in the bag, might as well use a platform the soldiers will be familiar with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is beginning. Germany will be starting its Pistol Trials sometime this year.

-No requirment for 9x19 so the .45 or 10mm memedream can still live on

-Its still open if it will need to be Optics ready or not or if it can be optional

-LLM also not sure if required

-No manual safety because P8 is already mostly carried with the safety of and decocked

 

So every modern Pistol is in the race probably.

 

P30 of the KSK could be also replaced soon.
KSK also uses the Glock 17 4.Gen as the P9A1

 

And another confirmation that the last two companies in the System Sturmgewehr Trials are

Haenel and H&K.

 

The AWM/G22 will be upgraded to the G22A2 standard which is basically a G22 in a AX chassis in .300 with a Steiner 5-25x56

 

Source: ESUT 01.07.18 "Handwaffen der Bundeswehr" by Andre Forkert.

They are the biggest monthly defence magazine in Germany with good contact to Industry and Goverment/Bundeswehr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2018 at 9:28 AM, Sturgeon said:

HK433 will be the Bundie's next gun, but it'd be funnier if Haenel won. AR-15 apocalypse!

 

While the rest of eurosphere gets the 416, the Bundies just had to be different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sturgeon said:

 

The 433 might be a better gun than the 416. We'll see, I guess.

 

You can tell from the placement of the charging handle that ze Germans have little experience in night fighting. No room for lasers and white lights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act, Report 115-290.pdf

 

"M4A1 Carbine Extended Forward Rail System.—The Army’s Soldier Enhancement Program study published in December 2017 found that the United States Special Operations Command’s extended free-float rail system is substantially more accurate than the Army’s legacy M4A1 rail and readily available in the supply system. While the Committee supports the Army’s modernization strategy which calls for developing and fielding the Next Generation Squad Automatic Weapon before developing and fielding the Next Generation Soldier Weapon, the Committee remains concerned that the Army is not accelerating modest and readily available upgrades to the M4A1 Carbine and thereby improving solider lethality in the interim. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to accelerate adapting a government provided extended free-float rail system for the M4A1 carbine."

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?
×