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 11/16/2018 at 1:16 PM, roguetechie said:

 

Why didn't st george just have K&M do it?

 

They did a phenomenal job with the m17.

IIRC, The M17 is available up here through an importer (irunguns)...and IIRC less expensive than the reproduction.
LOL

A lot of derpy decisions are made in the firearms industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2018 at 12:12 PM, Sturgeon said:

 

"We have a more accurate more lethal weapon than almost anyone out there."

 

Uhuh. Keep telling yourselves that.

SS109 is known for its lethality ^^
I love how expensive this piece of shit is. Lipstick on a pig, take #3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, CDNcommissar said:

SS109 is known for its lethality ^^
I love how expensive this piece of shit is. Lipstick on a pig, take #3.

 

L2A2 is worse. 100 ft/s slower and with a deliberately thicker jacket so it never ever fragments.

And the Britbongs still bitch about its lethality.

Share this post


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

 

L2A2 is worse. 100 ft/s slower and with a deliberately thicker jacket so it never ever fragments.

And the Britbongs still bitch about its lethality.

Euroweaklings think it's humane to icepick an enemy so that they slowly die of blood loss.

Comrade Stalin approves!
So lethal against old Soviet helmets at 500m though!

Share this post


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

 

Different method of welding the receiver to the trunnion. Supposed to improve accuracy over the L85A2's LOL 4.12 MOA standard.

My guess is that that is partially why the A3 is so expensive (besides the fact that they're re-rebuilding it again).

AK-12 >> L85A2/L85A3
Were the "old" Daniel Defense handguards free-floating? It's interesting they didn't go back to DD for new handguards...

Share this post


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

My guess is that that is partially why the A3 is so expensive (besides the fact that they're re-rebuilding it again).

AK-12 >> L85A2/L85A3
Were the "old" Daniel Defense handguards free-floating? It's interesting they didn't go back to DD for new handguards...

 

I don't believe so.

Share this post


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

Does anyone have any information about the MG on top? Supposedly it was from Ruger (experimental). 

2699A-JPG633536160239326129.jpg2699C-JPG633536160240263467.jpg

2699B-JPG633536160239794798.jpg

U.S. MACHINE GUN T23E1 .30 SN# 1

SPRINGFIELD ARMORY

1943

Manufactured by Springfield Armory, Springfield, Ma. - Gas-operated, air-cooled, belt-fed, automatic weapon capable of delivering both a high and low rate of automatic fire as well as semi-automatic fire. 4-groove rifling, right hand twist. Fed by ammunition box capable of holding 100 rounds. Weapon weighs approximately 26.65 lbs. Evolved from T10 series. Improved T23 with addition of a Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) type rate reducer enabling weapon to fire at slow rate. Equipped with flash hider, bipod, carrying handle.

Notes: Except for the machine guns aficionados, this weapon is virtually unknown. It evolved from the T10 series of weapons. The T10s were made in collaboration with Colt, High-Standard and Auto-Ordnance and it is believed that Bill Ruger worked on this project for awhile. The project laid dormant until Clarence Simpson of the Springfield Armory was ordered to pick it up in 1943. His version included a BAR type rate reducer enabling the weapon to fire at a slower rate.
While the weapon tested well, the project was never seriously considered for adoption since they could not get the weight of the weapon under 26 lbs.

http://ww3.rediscov.com/spring/VFPCGI.exe?IDCFile=/spring/DETAILS.IDC,SPECIFIC=11344,DATABASE=71375263

P.S.

kalspruta1959mag58.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.kalashnikov.ru/ruchnaya-pushka-rt-20-kalibra-20h110/

Article about RT-20.

web_cdasdssqsdsq1s.jpg

 

Quote

   The RT-20 system was created for a specific task - to penetrate the armor protection of an infrared sight mounted on a Serbian tank M-84. During the initial stage of the conflict in the Balkans, the use of tanks of this type with an infrared sight created considerable difficulties for the movement of Croatian units at night. The choice of a 20x110 mm “Hispano-Suiz” cartridge (the standard cartridge of the M55 Yugoslavian anti-aircraft cannons) was due to the fact that the power of its armor-piercing projectile was sufficient to break through the infrared sight armored cover.

   In the Croatian army, the RT-20 system was given the name "hand gun". Designer gun Ratko Jankovic. The effective firing range of the weapon is 1800 m. Weight is about 30 kg, overal leight - 1330 mm. Equipped with Kahles ZF 6x42 optical sight.

   The defeat of point targets at such ranges, for example a single soldier, under normal conditions is problematic and is associated with the ballistic characteristics of the used cartridge. However, hitting lightly armored vehicles (at reduced ranges) or aircraft and helicopters in the parking lot is possible.

/.../

   Secondly, besides the passive three-chamber muzzle brake and shock-absorbing backplates made of spongy rubber — quite usual attributes of any powerful weapon, for RT-20 it was necessary to develop a special reactive recoil compensation system, somewhat similar to that used in recoilless guns. Approximately in the middle of the barrel length, a series of holes are made in it, through which part of the powder gases from the barrel are led into the pipe passing over the barrel, and through it gases are led back through the nozzle, creating a reactive force opposing recoil forces when fired.
   This recoil compensation scheme has been used for the first time in the practice of mass-produced weapons. In our country, the reactive principle of recoil compensation has theoretically been studied for more than a decade, and even a whole herd of PhDs in this area wanders around somewhere, but the matter has not progressed beyond paperwork. Is war really the engine of progress?

 

 

Spoiler

СиÑÑема RT-20M1, ÑÑÑелÑба Ñ Ð¾Ð¿ÑиÑеÑким пÑиÑелом. ÐÑÑнал ÐалаÑников

 

web_cdasdssqsdsq3s.jpg

 

Quote

   Whatever it was, but the application of the principle of reactive compensation of recoil put before the designer and a number of other technical problems, not all of which could be solved at least on a solid "three" [out of 5].

   First, they had to use the “bullpup” scheme, in which the trigger hook is connected to the trigger with a long spoke needle, which not only eliminated the possibility of adjusting the trigger length and force of pull, but also reduced to “completely no” the information "output" (trigger is very “dry”, without warning).

 

web_cdasdssqsdsq9s.jpg

 

Quote

   Secondly, the upper location of the gas tube led to the shift of the telescopic sight bracket to the left and to the impossibility of firing from the left shoulder. By the way, the system has no open mechanical sight, but there are two brackets (different in design) - on the left for the day optics, on the right - for the night sights.

   In addition, the presence of a jet nozzle creates a number of problems, in particular the need for the absence of obstacles behind the weapon and the appearance of additional unmasking factors require the shooter and others to be extremely careful in order to avoid injuries from backward moving gases. Yes, and the shooter must lie at some angle to the weapon to his left, while the right shoulder should rest on the buttstock.

   Even at the first acquaintance with this weapon, the location of a rather long bolt handle on the left caused bewilderment (in the position for shooting, it rests on the right shoulder blade). Awareness of the purpose of the "additional safety" came during familiarization firing - when fired, it is better to take specific pose, without contact with the handle (which, at the same time, eliminates the danger from backflow gases).

 

СиÑÑема RT-20M1, заÑÑжание. ÐÑÑнал ÐалаÑников

Quote

   Speaking of any rapid fire can be done only through tears - to reload you have to get out of a rather heavy weapon, move it away from yourself, open bolt/chamber with an unusual movement, and if you have a hard extraction (which is not uncommon), try unlock it with a heavy object. Throw away the cartridge case, put the new catridge in and, sending it to the chamber, lock the bolt. It remains to crawl under the weapon and try again to find the target. Therefore, the provision of a relatively high rate of fire requires the presence of the second member - the loader. And in this case, the location of the bolt handle on the left makes it difficult to act - when the loader is positioned to the left of the shooter, it is necessary to act through shooter's back, if the loader is located to the right - through the gas port, blindly. And when tilting the weapon to the right at the bipod hinge, the gunner loses the target, since the sight is tilted along with the weapon.

   The barrel with the receiver and gas pipe connected to the lodge with two screws. The lodge is made of aluminum alloy by casting. There are no tools for individual adjustment. Casting and painting are extremely sloppy.

 

web_cdasdssqsdsq8s.jpg

 

Quote

   In general, the system leaves the impression of “unfinishedness”, and taking into account the weight (30 kg), and extreme danger for the shooter, but not in terms of the impact of a very powerful impact, but on the practical possibility of changing the firing position after each shot - the return fire of the enemy is inevitable. When firing at night, a shot from the RT-20 is very easy to identify from two flashes at the muzzle brake and at the nozzle, in the afternoon - at blue-ish clouds of powder gases. Yes, and simply in service handling, carrying the RT-20 requires a lot of strength and endurance (especially when using a belt), for which the attachments are made on the left side of the weapon. But even the experience of the Second World War showed that the maneuverability of weapons is directly related to survivability and combat capability. So the 21-kilogram 14.5-mm PTRS was transported disassembled into two parts.

 

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...