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 5/11/2017 at 6:56 PM, Sturgeon said:

 

"For Staff Sgt. Troy Hauck, a platoon sergeant with Bravo Company's Weapons Platoon, not having to worry about ear protection when firing his rifle is a nice bonus."

 

I hope this is the author inserting some derp and not how the soldiers are being trained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LoooSer'd.

 

Speaking of the L85, Ian has been doing a series:

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure where he got the idea that the XL-60 series have a rectangular receiver and the XL-70 series have a trapezoidal one.  According to the diagrams in Steve Raw's book, the XL-64 have an asymmetrical, somewhat rounded receiver cross-section while the production SA-80 has a rectilinear receiver cross-section.

 

In fact, one of the biggest mysteries of the SA-80 program is how the design got from the XL-64 to the XL-70.  A lot of the design elements change, seemingly overnight and with no intermediate steps.  The receiver goes from the irregular, oblong shape to the square shape.  The handguard goes from having a clamshell left and right half to an upper piece and a bottom piece.  The bolt carrier goes from riding on a pair of guide rods that also house the return springs (basically an exact clone of the AR-18) to having two guide rods and a third rod that supports the return spring.  All of these changes occurred at once.  Also, none of them fixed the problems.

Share this post


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

LoooSer'd.

 

Speaking of the L85, Ian has been doing a series:

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure where he got the idea that the XL-60 series have a rectangular receiver and the XL-70 series have a trapezoidal one.  According to the diagrams in Steve Raw's book, the XL-64 have an asymmetrical, somewhat rounded receiver cross-section while the production SA-80 has a rectilinear receiver cross-section.

 

In fact, one of the biggest mysteries of the SA-80 program is how the design got from the XL-64 to the XL-70.  A lot of the design elements change, seemingly overnight and with no intermediate steps.  The receiver goes from the irregular, oblong shape to the square shape.  The handguard goes from having a clamshell left and right half to an upper piece and a bottom piece.  The bolt carrier goes from riding on a pair of guide rods that also house the return springs (basically an exact clone of the AR-18) to having two guide rods and a third rod that supports the return spring.  All of these changes occurred at once.  Also, none of them fixed the problems.

 

I believe he means the cross section of the receiver in profile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Google fails me but I assume it has something to do with never knowing what good food tastes like.

 

It's from Mike B of Bloke on the Range. "If you raise a dog on bad dog food, it won't want to eat good dog food."

Share this post


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

I'm glad we are finally using AMERICAN cartridges now. 

 

Also, I've never heard of the "263 USA" or whatever. Thoughts?

 

It's a lengthened 7.62x39 blown out and necked to 6.5mm. A bit less powerful than .260 Remington.

 

Ultimately, it's pretty heavy for an infantry rifle round. Would make a good 7.62 replacement, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 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?
×
×
  • Create New...