Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sturgeon

Designing A Rifle From Scratch(ish)

Recommended Posts

Significant BCG redesign today. Initially I was going to have the firing pin ride with the bolt, like an AK. The benefits of this are that the bolt stem retracts into the bolt carrier when the bolt unlocks, saving some overall length with the bolt group and allowing additional overtravel. Here's the original design with the bolt unlocked (notice the retracted firing pin and bolt stem):

mW17M3r.png

 

This has a couple disadvantages, the chief one being that it fucks you coming and going on your mass ratio. Initially, I thought I would have plenty of excess mass in the bolt carrier for this to give me a ratio of 5.6:1 or above, but once the design was complete it turned out I only had a ratio of 4.3:1, which is not terrible but not what I'd hoped for. A few days earlier @Collimatrix had insisted that, in fact, I would get whupped in mass ratio by this so 10 internet points to him for getting that right.

 

I switched over to a firing-pin-in-carrier arrangement, which you can see below. The mass ratio jumped up to 6.3:1, and all is well in the world.

 

mlt58t0.png

 

The carrier has an extension on the back of it which houses the firing pin. It could probably be made a little more manufacturable but for right now it's fine. During the recoil stroke the extension just telescopes into the recoil buffer. Not a big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord_James said:

 

This might be stupid, but couldn’t you make that 300mm long handguard in 3x 100mm long pieces and fuse them together? It might not look pretty, but it should get the job done without having to worry to much about warping. 

 

You could fuse multiple pieces of plastic together, and in fact this is done for the Steyr AUG stock.  But I'm not sure how strong two pieces of plastic welded together are at the seam.

 

Polymer molecules are these long, noodly things comprised of a bunch of monomers linked end to end to end.  Prior to injection molding, the plastic gets churned up in a barrel with a helical screw.  Imagine a big bowl of spaghetti that gets stirred up and then left out to cool and then dry out.

 

I'm not sure how well plastic welding techniques stir the polymer molecules from the two parts together.  That might mean you end up with something like two bowls of spaghetti, and one was poured on top of the other, and then left out to cool and then dry out.

Share this post


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

 

You could fuse multiple pieces of plastic together, and in fact this is done for the Steyr AUG stock.  But I'm not sure how strong two pieces of plastic welded together are at the seam.

 

Polymer molecules are these long, noodly things comprised of a bunch of monomers linked end to end to end.  Prior to injection molding, the plastic gets churned up in a barrel with a helical screw.  Imagine a big bowl of spaghetti that gets stirred up and then left out to cool and then dry out.

 

I'm not sure how well plastic welding techniques stir the polymer molecules from the two parts together.  That might mean you end up with something like two bowls of spaghetti, and one was poured on top of the other, and then left out to cool and then dry out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_welding

Share this post


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

 

That handguard is rather long.  It could be made of injection-molded plastic, but injection molding something that long while still holding good dimensional tolerances is challenging.  The mold halves have to close exactly on the part.  Those mold halves would be something on the order of 300mm long.  At that length, slight differences in temperature between the mold halves are enough to cause distortion and misalignment due to differential thermal expansion.

 

I think there are plastics that could be rigid enough and stable enough to be used in a handguard.  PEEK, for example, has excellent mechanical properties and a melting point that's 100 degrees or so higher than nylon 6.  A polysulfone might work, as might PPS.  But these are fairly expensive plastics that have additional challenges in processing that would slow down production.

Coming back to this, wouldn't it be possible to monitor the temperature of the mold and keep it heated at a constant temperature? 

Can't simple thicker plastic be used to make it more rigid? 

 

18 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

There are plastic handguards, they are almost all injection molded.  Injection molding has potentially amazing cycle times.  We're talking less than a minute per part in a process that can be run nearly continuously.

3D printed plastic parts are weaker than injection molded ones, even if they're made from the same plastic.  3D printing is also a lot slower.  It's really not cost-competitive for mass-manufacture.

I was more thinking of low volume runs or something like that.  3D printing has come a long way, I remember a 3D printer that uses light to harden a resin into a shape, which is then cured, this avoids the layered approach which makes the plastic much stronger. 

 

18 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Because allen screws suck dick.

I like hex keys, probably because every fastener in my workplace is either hex key or a bolt. Though, I think the torx is superior, except in price. 

 

17 hours ago, Lord_James said:

 

This might be stupid, but couldn’t you make that 300mm long handguard in 3x 100mm long pieces and fuse them together? It might not look pretty, but it should get the job done without having to worry to much about warping. 

You could make it a little thicker than needed, and smooth out the welds, to remove the weld mark. 

 

15 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

You could fuse multiple pieces of plastic together, and in fact this is done for the Steyr AUG stock.  But I'm not sure how strong two pieces of plastic welded together are at the seam.

 

Polymer molecules are these long, noodly things comprised of a bunch of monomers linked end to end to end.  Prior to injection molding, the plastic gets churned up in a barrel with a helical screw.  Imagine a big bowl of spaghetti that gets stirred up and then left out to cool and then dry out.

 

I'm not sure how well plastic welding techniques stir the polymer molecules from the two parts together.  That might mean you end up with something like two bowls of spaghetti, and one was poured on top of the other, and then left out to cool and then dry out.

Wouldn't stir welding accomplish this? 

 

13 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

DMDIp0c.png

The rifle is looking nice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Xoon said:

I was more thinking of low volume runs or something like that.  3D printing has come a long way, I remember a 3D printer that uses light to harden a resin into a shape, which is then cured, this avoids the layered approach which makes the plastic much stronger. 

 

Stereolithography is great if UV-cured resins are good enough for what you're doing, which is rare (short of prototypes that you're testing for fit&feel). The final products tend to embrittle over time (especially if exposed to sunlight, as the UV continues crosslinking), which is not ideal for a firearm. It would be an elegant solution to getting a long handguard, as the final part can be much bigger than the original tank (if you're using the bottom-up build process, with UV projected on the bottom of the resin tank)

Share this post


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

 

Stereolithography is great if UV-cured resins are good enough for what you're doing, which is rare (short of prototypes that you're testing for fit&feel). The final products tend to embrittle over time (especially if exposed to sunlight, as the UV continues crosslinking), which is not ideal for a firearm. It would be an elegant solution to getting a long handguard, as the final part can be much bigger than the original tank (if you're using the bottom-up build process, with UV projected on the bottom of the resin tank)

Good point. 

 

Though, it made me think, what about 3D printed aluminum? 
You could accomplish new types of geometry with it.
Crazy shapes like these which are pretty much impossible to cast and very expensive to machine:

67bc9f_4f0e0d022b544d82d53d63921040b103.

 

Another thing would be carbon fiber construction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Xoon said:

 

Though, it made me think, what about 3D printed aluminum? 


Not anywhere close to as strong as forged or extruded aluminum, and the cycle times would be ridiculous. Look at how fast extrusions can be made (starting at about 1:00):

 

 

That would produce almost fully formed receivers that just need to be cut to length, sorted for straightness, and very minor finishing operations (like drilling holes).

 

Share this post


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


Not anywhere close to as strong as forged or extruded aluminum, and the cycle times would be ridiculous. Look at how fast extrusions can be made (starting at about 1:00):

 

 

That would produce almost fully formed receivers that just need to be cut to length, sorted for straightness, and very minor finishing operations (like drilling holes).

 

How long does it take to mill the rest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For comparison, here's how long it takes to print an engine block from plastic:

 

 

 

If you imagine that makes, oh, let's say 20 receivers in a go, then you're talking about over four hours of cycle time per machine per unfinished receiver. That's way too long.

Share this post


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

For comparison, here's how long it takes to print an engine block from plastic:

 

 

 

If you imagine that makes, oh, let's say 20 receivers in a go, then you're talking about over four hours of cycle time per machine per unfinished receiver. That's way too long.

I am not trying to dispute that 3D printers are slow, I am just brainstorming. In theory, you could mill your handguard in 5 seconds if you wanted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Xoon said:

I am not trying to dispute that 3D printers are slow, I am just brainstorming. In theory, you could mill your handguard in 5 seconds if you wanted. 

 

I think 5-axis machines enable you to do much of what you could do with a 3D printer, as far as small arms applications go. Now for aerospace, that's a very different story.

Share this post


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

Coming back to this, wouldn't it be possible to monitor the temperature of the mold and keep it heated at a constant temperature? 

 

 

Not really.

 

The molten plastic is being shot into the mold, and since we're talking thermoplastics, the mold is what is removing the heat from the plastic via conduction.  There are cooling lines running through the mold to remove this heat, but the more complex the mold geometry, the harder it is for the cooling lines to remove the heat evenly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

I think 5-axis machines enable you to do much of what you could do with a 3D printer, as far as small arms applications go. Now for aerospace, that's a very different story.

Slapping a mill bit on a industrial robot? 

 

25 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

Not really.

 

The molten plastic is being shot into the mold, and since we're talking thermoplastics, the mold is what is removing the heat from the plastic via conduction.  There are cooling lines running through the mold to remove this heat, but the more complex the mold geometry, the harder it is for the cooling lines to remove the heat evenly.

Hmm, thats too bad. 

Share this post


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

Good point. 

 

Though, it made me think, what about 3D printed aluminum? 
You could accomplish new types of geometry with it.
Crazy shapes like these which are pretty much impossible to cast and very expensive to machine:

67bc9f_4f0e0d022b544d82d53d63921040b103.

 

Another thing would be carbon fiber construction. 

 

Materially it's one big weld (thinking of SLM, which is laser welding aluminium powder into the desired shape - in an inert atmosphere ofc). Not great for fatigue (e.g. you're very likely to end up with porosity), which might not be ideal for a receiver (I don't want to say it can't be done, but it'd need testing before saying it can be done). If this was really getting made then it'd be a much better option for the first half dozen prototypes, before the geometry was finalised enough for the big spend on the die for the extrusion.

 

Upper receivers are hollow bodies of almost constant cross section by definition (as they're enclosing the reciprocating moving parts), so it's a natural match for extrusion for full production

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I promised I would provide feedback at some point, but my brain is slow and timid. My chief thoughts are as follows.

1. The arrangement of the bolt is one of the most peculiar aspects of the weapon. Your design certainly appears supported by sound technical reasoning regarding interplay with the rounds in the magazine. My concern is that a reduction in the number of bolt lugs will correspondingly degrade the precision of the weapon. Of course, this is in the context of military ammunition, and yet more worrisome,  military shooters. Further, it is certainly reasonable to accept some loss of precision to gain increase reliability of the weapon during feeding, given your starting premise. I would, in short, like to see the data.

 

2. The retention of the AR-15 FCG components is an interesting move.  I always thought it odd that fewer companies exploited reusing existing components in this fashion. If I'm understanding correctly, it would also be easy to move towards a "cassette" style of trigger pack, which is of growing popularity with the AR-15 market. 

3. Your decision to devise your own magazine is admirable, and you certainly seem to have succeeded. My friend is curious if you can handle longer ogive, possibly ~66gr range EPR style 5.56 projectiles in the magazines. I'm not sold on drums, as their weight and bulk are disconcerting, but the ability to have them is never a bad thing.

4. I have no idea how you're going to solve the action-spring issue. I'm eager to see to what degree you can balance the forces acting on the bolt. Given you're trying to be unique, I wonder to what degree you'll end up matching the SCAR or other AR-18 descendants. Given the shape of the space you're working with, I do have my predicitions. (They mostly involve it being real goose hours, so I shan't share.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, OnlySlightlyCrazy said:

My concern is that a reduction in the number of bolt lugs will correspondingly degrade the precision of the weapon.

 

wat

 

29 minutes ago, OnlySlightlyCrazy said:

My friend

 

lol

 

30 minutes ago, OnlySlightlyCrazy said:

curious if you can handle longer ogive, possibly ~66gr range EPR style 5.56 projectiles in the magazines.

 

Realistically, it's designed for 2.26" OAL rounds. However, the action can handle rounds much, much longer as its overtravel is significant.

 

31 minutes ago, OnlySlightlyCrazy said:

I have no idea how you're going to solve the action-spring issue.

 

Come again?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh. Yeah perhaps I shouldn't have written my thoughts right before going to bed.


 

8 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

wat


My understanding of the appeal of multi-lug rotating bolt systems was that they offer a much more consistent lockup due primarily to the number of lugs involved, so that in theory an AR-10 would have a more consistent lockup than a Garand, or possibly in some odd world we could compare the descendants of those weapons. Thus, to my inexperienced eye, moving to fewer larger locking lugs seems like it could introduce inconsistency into the lockup, leading to a reduction in the precision of the weapon.

 

 

8 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Realistically, it's designed for 2.26" OAL rounds. However, the action can handle rounds much, much longer as its overtravel is significant.

 


That would be a limitation of the magazine, correct? 

 

 

8 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Come again?


The SCAR has it's action spring (or maybe it's called the return spring? I don't study bad rifles other than the AR-15) hanging out behind the bolt carrier group and occupying that space in the receiver, with a single spring as shown. I'm curious how you will design your action spring, whether you'll use a single spring in line with the bolt ala SCAR, an AR-18 two-spring assembly, or something novel. 

 

Share this post


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

My understanding of the appeal of multi-lug rotating bolt systems was that they offer a much more consistent lockup due primarily to the number of lugs involved, so that in theory an AR-10 would have a more consistent lockup than a Garand, or possibly in some odd world we could compare the descendants of those weapons. Thus, to my inexperienced eye, moving to fewer larger locking lugs seems like it could introduce inconsistency into the lockup, leading to a reduction in the precision of the weapon.

 

Oh I see what you are talking about. So my understanding of that is that it has less to do with how many lugs and more to do with how those lugs are spaced. So you want lugs that cover both axes rather than just two opposed lugs. I have four which more or less cover the two axes, and that arrangement was designed to do that (among other things - it was a compromise of course).

 

3 hours ago, OnlySlightlyCrazy said:

That would be a limitation of the magazine, correct? 

 

Yes the magazine is designed for a 2.26" OAL plus 0.065" of tolerance. This is similar tolerance to an AK-74 magazine, and does mean you could stuff slightly longer rounds (as long as 2.32") into the mag, potentially. However while this should be fine for the casual handloader, I wouldn't recommend doing it for a full military small arms system. Easy enough to just lengthen the mag, instead. 

 

3 hours ago, OnlySlightlyCrazy said:

The SCAR has it's action spring (or maybe it's called the return spring? I don't study bad rifles other than the AR-15) hanging out behind the bolt carrier group and occupying that space in the receiver, with a single spring as shown. I'm curious how you will design your action spring, whether you'll use a single spring in line with the bolt ala SCAR, an AR-18 two-spring assembly, or something novel. 

 

Currently the design is intended to use one action spring, nested in the bolt carrier coaxial to the piston, but I may have to move it slightly lower.

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 Sturgeon
      This thread is for suggesting contest subjects for the forum to participate in!
    • By Sturgeon
      The year is [year]. You are a [thing] designer working in/for [country/nation state/corporation]. The [things] of the rival [country/nation state/corporation] have recently *gotten meaningfully better in some specific way* and/or *the geopolitical and/or industry circumstances have significantly changed*. You have been tasked with designing a [thing] to meet the needs of this new and changing world!
       
      If that made you laugh, maybe you've participated in a design competition before, here or on another forum. I've been a contestant or judge five or six design competitions by this point, and I'd like to highlight a mistake I've seen people make often that I think could hurt your chances. And that is, designing something for the wrong time period, specifically designing something that is too early for the period in which the competition takes place.
       
      Quick: When you think about US rifles in World War II, what comes to mind? A lot if you would answer with the M1 Garand, I'd bet. If I went on another forum and started a "Design a Rifle: USA 1944" thread, I bet I'd get a lot of entries that took their cues from the M1 Garand - but the M1 wasn't designed in 1944, it was designed in the late 1920s. In attempting to "fit in" to the time period of the competition, they would have in fact submitted a design that is 15 years too late! The an appropriately dated entry would be something like a T25 Lightweight Rifle, which is associated mostly with the late Forties and early Fifties, but whose design began in the mid 1940s. Using the M1 Garand as a model for your 1944 design would result in something like a slightly refined Garand with a box magazine slapped on, putting you well behind the curve!
       

       
      The T25 was what 1940s designers thought the rifle of the future would look like. Keen SHitters will notice the joke about the M14 in the above paragraph.
       
      Tanks and other vehicles are the same way. The M48 is associated with the Vietnam era, but its development began in 1953. The Space Shuttle is associated closely with the 1980s, but design work on it began in the late 1960s, before the first man ever set foot on the Moon. The MiG-15 is associated with the Korean War, but Soviet jet fighter designers at that time were already putting pencils to paper on what would become the MiG-21.
       
      It's tempting to create a design that looks like it would fit right in to the battles we know and associate with whatever time period a competition covers. Yet, the real-world designers fighting those battles from their drafting tables were already imagining the next thing, and even what would come after that, in turn. Design competitions are just for fun, but in some ways they are also practice for the real thing, so don't get stuck in the past!
       
       
    • By Sturgeon
      The idea for a design competition predates SH itself, actually going all the way back to the 2011-2012 timeframe on the World of Tanks North American Forum. Before the Exodus of 2014, there were several tank design competitions, two of which I entered. Earlier today, I found my entries to those competitions saved in various forms on my computer, and I thought I would post them here for people to reference moving forward.

      Entered in: Design a Tank - 1938 Germany
       
      The Early History of the Mittlerer Panzer Greif
       

       
      In 1936, as Heinz Guderian was writing Achtung – Panzer!, he was solicited by the Heereswaffenamt Wa Prüf 6 to create a specification for light, medium, heavy, and super-heavy tanks, as part of Germany's ongoing re-armament. The tanks then in development, the Panzer III and IV, were seen as adequate for future needs, but the purpose of Wa Prüf 6's solicitation was to gain a greater understanding of upcoming panzer technologies and tactics.

      Guderian's submission eliminated the heavy and super-heavy categories entirely, in favor of fast light and medium tanks requiring large engines and excellent suspensions. Wa Prüf 6 immediately began design studies on panzers to fill these needs, while still allocating some effort towards a heavy breakthrough tank design.
      Early panzer designs focused on improving the existing Panzer III, but a special division of Wa Prüf 6, the Spekulativpanzerabteilung, was tasked with pushing the limits of what was possible. One design, the Mittlerer Panzer K, was selected for further study.
       
      The original MPK design used a forged armor steel hull welded together into an elliptical shape, which the Spekulativpanzerabteilung determined would give the best internal volume to weight ratio, providing the best protection, but still maintaining the high power-to-weight ratio specified by Guderian's white paper. Armor at the front was 30mm thick, sloped at around 45 degrees, for the hull. The turret was a simple welded design, mounting the latest 5cm L/60 high velocity cannon, while the suspension was torsion bar similar to the Panzer III, but with more roadwheel travel. Sighting was with stadia reticles, and the tank was powered by a 300 horsepower Maybach HL 120TR, which gave 15 hp/tonne to the 20 tonne tank.
       
      As Spekulativpanzerabteilung improved the design, it morphed beyond recognition. To improve the cross-country performance, the suspension was changed to an early form of hydropneumatic suspension, with more roadwheeltravel, mounted in units bolted to the side of the hull. A tank's mobility, SPA reasoned, was greatly affected by its ability to stay in repair, and thus the modular suspension was developed. Due to marginal increases in weight, the engine was modified to mount a supercharger, increasing the engine power to about 400 horsepower. A mockup was built, but a prototype was never completed.
       
      In early 1938, Germany intercepted Russian plans to build a tank in the 100 tonne range, with upwards of 100mm of armor. A requirement was set to build, as quickly as possible, a panzer that could counter such a behemoth. SPA's medium panzer design suddenly went from a low-priority technical study, to a full procurement program. No guns in the German arsenal could reliably penetrate 100mm of armor at combat ranges without special ammunition, so immediately a new gun was sought. Eventually, it was decided that a Czechoslovakian artillery piece, the 8cm Kanon 37, would form the basis of the new medium tank's armament. Production was licensed from Skoda immediately, and it entered service as a towed anti tank gun in June of 1938 as the 7.65cm Kanone 38. The Kanone 38 differed from the K37 by firing the same projectiles as the 7.5cm KwK 37, which had been adopted a year earlier for German AFVs, but at nearly three times the velocity (900 m/s). 
       
      Fitting this monster cannon to the MPK required a total redesign. The ambitious elliptical hull was kept, but everything else changed. The turret ring swelled to a (then-enormous) 175cm, and accommodated an advanced turret, mounting a reduced-weight variant of the 7.65cm PaK 38, the 7.65cm KwK 38 to sturdy forward-mounted trunnions, with low-profile recoil recuperators. The turret was a semi-elliptical tetrahedron shape, constructed from welded forgings, with dual stabilized, stereoscopic rangefinders for both the commander and gunner, something seen only on battleships at that time. The commander's cupola sported 360-degree panoramic periscopes with a Leiteinrichtung - or slaving device, to slew the turret onto new targets. Armor on the new turret consisted of eighty millimeters of frontal armor on the mantlet, with fifty millimeters all around protection. The hull armor's slope was increased to 60 degrees, and thickened to fifty millimeters to cope with the new generation of guns. The weight of the tank ballooned to 34 tonnes, and the suspension was completely redesigned as a new compound hydropneumatic/Horstmann design, called Schwebesystem, which utilized 60cm wide tracks. The old 400 horsepower turbocharged Maybach was not deemed sufficient to power this new tank, and so the suspension was lengthened by a roadwheel to accommodate the new Jumo 250 engine, a two-stroke turbocharged diesel, which produced 650 horsepower. Transmitting this power to the roadwheels was a brand new compact Merritt-Brown-derived transmission, with an automatic planetary gearbox, which allowed the tank to steer in place, as well as travel in reverse at 30 km/h. Upon an early prototype demonstrating this ability, Guderian exclaimed "sie bauen es!" - "build it!"
       
      The first prototypes of the newly renamed Mittlerer Panzer Greif rolled off the line in January of 1939. These new panzers were the last to be produced by Germany by the old method of batch production, and as a result, each was slightly different than the next. Full rate production would begin once testing was concluded in August of 1939, at the brand new WPW plant in Obendorf.
       
      Specifications, Mit.PzKpfw. V Greif Ausf. A:
       

       
      Dimensions
      Weight: 34 t
      Length: 6.95 m
      Width: 3.00 m
      Height: 2.85 m
      Armament
      Main armament: 7.65 cm KwK 38
      Caliber length (KwK): 55
      Tube length (KwK): 4.053 m
      Tube life: 500 shot
      Secondary armament: 1 × MG 34
      Cannon ammunition: 45 
      MG ammunition: 2700
      Armor
      Upper Hull: 50 mm / 60 °
      Lower Hull: 30 mm / 45 °
      Rear Hull: 25 mm / 90 °
      Hull Roof: 20 mm
      Hull Floor: 20 mm
      Turret Mantlet: 80 mm / 90 °
      Turret Front: 50 mm / 90 °
      Rear Turret: 50 mm / 75 °
      Turret Roof: 20 mm
      Mobility
      Engine: Jumo 250 six-cylinder turbocharged opposed two-stroke diesel, 650 hp
      Displacement: 16.63 L
      Gears (F / R): 7/5
      Power to weight ratio: 19.2 hp / t
      Top speed: 55 km / h
      Fuel storage: 720 l
      Reach: 525 km (road), 350 km (off road)
      Track width: 65 cm
       
      Leichter Panzer IV


       
      (The writeup for this one appears to have vanished into the aether, but I do recall that it was armed with a short 7.5cm gun and an autocannon!)
       
      Entered in: Design a Tank - NATO 1949
       
      NATO Medium Tank
       
      Concept: License-produceable medium tank "kit"
      By 1949, it had become clear that not only were tensions between the Warsaw Pact and NATO going to escalate, but that Soviet-aligned countries were actively readying for a full-scale conventional conflict. Because of this, the then-new civilian Operations Research Office was tasked with development of new weapons to be proliferated throughout - and, if possible license produced by - NATO member nations. The Armored Vehicles Team of the initiative, which was dubbed Project FOUNDRY, contained a scant seven members who began brainstorming ideas for a cheap, easy to produce, and eminently maintainable NATO-wide tank.
       
      Such a tank, it was reasoned, would not need to necessarily be the standard and only fighting vehicle of all NATO forces, but would allow less industrially capable NATO nations to defend themselves independently, as well as member nations who so chose to fast-track development of their own customized versions of the basic vehicle, without need for multiple lengthy, independent, and redundant tank development programs.
       
      While many concepts were explored, the one that gained the most traction was for a generously roomy welded chassis, with standardized turret ring dimensions, so that turrets and hulls could be exchanged at the depot level. Running contrary to current Army thinking, which emphasized small hulls with advanced, efficient transmission layouts, the concept had a large hull rear, supporting space inefficient, but widely available automotive components.
       
      As the AVT refined the design, they worked closely with British and American automotive engineers to try and create a design that could easily be adapted for the different automotive components then available, and projected. The design was intended from the outset to contain at least the British Meteor engine, and the Merrit-Brown Z.51.R transmission used in the Centurion. Because of this, the tank could not be made very much smaller than the Centurion, but this was deemed acceptable.
       
      The hull design received the most attention initially, and design of the turret and armament initially languished. The AVT had to solve, satisfactorily, the problem of producing specialized fighting vehicle components - the gun, turret, and sighting systems - in a variety of nations. Eventually, it was decided that the facilities in more developed countries, such as the US, Britain, France, and Germany, that could produce armed turrets and rings for all users, to be shipped abroad and mated to locally produced hulls.
       
      One further problem facing the AVT was ensuring the transportability of the new tanks by the various trucks, ships, and railcars that were in use at the time by member nations. The solution was to limit the weight of the new tank to 40 tonnes, enabling it to be transported by the majority of surplus wartime infrastructure.
       
      The resulting hull design was highly convergent with, but distinct from the British Centurion tank. The armor plates were to be rolled, heat-treated, and cut to shape by industrially capable member nations with the industrial capacity, and then shipped along with automatic welding equipment, if needed, to member nations for assembly. Each welded part assembled together using dovetails - like a cardboard model - to improve the strength of the welds, allowing for somewhat expedited welding practices. The turret ring race and other senstitive contact areas were finished before the plates shipped. When assembled, the hull used a series of mounting rails for engine and transmission, which approximated very nearly the modern "powerpack" concept, albeit in a much less space-efficient form. The driver's position was accommodating, with appreciable space as well as adjustable controls and seating, and power-assisted steering levers and shifter.
       
      Armor on the hull consisted of a two three-inch plates joined at a 60 and 45 degree from the normal, attached to side plates two inches thick set at an angle of twelve degrees, like the Centurion. Top and bottom armor plates were one inch thick, while the rear armor plate was 1.5" thick. Like the Centurion, there was provision for .25" thick standoff plates mounted to the side of the hull, encasing the suspension.
       
      The hull was to be furnished with automotive components in-situ, so there was no standard engine or transmission. However, most studies were done with either the British Meteor engine and Merrit-Brown Z.51.R transmission of the Centurion, or the AV-1790 engine with CD-850 transmission of the T40 experimental US medium tank. Special mention, however, should be made of the design study of the tank using a Ford GAA engine and syncromesh transmission from an M4A3 Medium, intended as a backup configuration in the event that a member nation could not obtain more modern engines and transmissions. In this configuration, the mobility of the tank would be significantly decreased.
       
      Suspension was provided via a series of mounting points to which suspension elements could be attached. The "default" suspension configuration was for an individually sprung Horstmann derivative, but the design accomodated both single and bogied forms, as well as internal and external torsion bar, Bellevile washer, and volute spring methods of suspension. Track pitch, width, and design were likewise left up to member nations, but most early scale models used standard US 6" pitch 24" wide T81 tracks.
       
      Ancillary components, such as stowage boxes, lights, fuel tanks, and other minor details, were to be produced by the receiving nations, with stamping equipment and technical know-how distributed as needed. 
       
      With all of the allowed variation, AVT realized it would need to publish an "engineering guide" to the new tank design, by early 1950 somewhat uncreatively christened the "NATO Medium Tank". This was accomplished with the first trials of automotive pilots, and "AN ENGINEERING GUIDE TO THE NATO MEDIUM TANK" was published by ORO on July 21st, 1950, and distributed to member nations. As the document only detailed the dimensional and production aspects of the tank, it was not considered a security risk, as member nations couldn't possibly leak any sensitive information from it that they did not already possess.
       
      By 1950, the first mild steel turret mockups had been created, giving two of the automotive pilots a "proper" look, even though they were no more combat capable than before. The turrets were cast in a single piece, and fitted with a 90mm high-and-low velocity gun based on the British 20 pdr but utilizing experience gained from the American 90mm series of cannons. It was determined that for member nations, the most common type of shot available would be solid APC shot. Because of this, a high velocity conventional AP round would be needed to deal with anticipated Soviet vehicles. The resulting round fired essentially the same T33 AP shot as the 90mm M3 gun, but at a much higher velocity of 3,200 ft/s. Testing revealed the round could penetrate a 100mm RHA plate at 60 degrees from normal 80% of the time at 500m. This was considered, initially, sufficient to defeat the anticipated armor of Soviet medium and heavy tanks.
      In order to allow more fragile, and thus higher capacity HE and utility (smoke) shells, ammunition was also developed for the gun that used a foam-lined, reduced volume case loaded with a smaller charge. This high explosive round produced 2,100 feet per second with its unique 22 pound shell, loaded with 2.6 pounds of Composition B high explosive. The technical data packages for these two types of ammunition were widely disseminated to member states, for their local production.
       
      The new 90mm gun was also compatible with any projectiles for the older M3 series of cannons, including HEAT and HVAP. Further, it was expected that the cannon would serve as the basis for a new 100-120mm gun, designed to fire a new generation of HEAT and APFSDS projectiles.
       
      Also included with the armament were three unity periscopes for each crewman, a single-plane stabilization system for the main gun, and a gunner/commander cowitnessing system. The turret had two ready racks of five rounds a piece, with additional ammunition stowage planned to be in the floor of the vehicle, and adjacent to the driver.
       
      The turret was cast with 3.5-3.6" all around armor, improving to six inches at the front. A large, wide mantlet/gun shield of 6" thick was provided, partially to help balance the gun in its cradle. The turret ring was 74".
      NBC protection was available through a "kit" modification that was distributed to member nations upon request.
       
      Specifications, NATO Medium Tank:
       

       
      Crew: 4
      Dimensions
      Weight: 39.4 t
      Length (Hull): 7.2 m
      Width: 3.4 m
      Height: 3.05 m (without roof MG)
      Armament
      Main armament: 90mm T104E3/M56
      Caliber length: 62
      Tube length: 5.60 m
      Tube life: 500 shot
      Secondary armament: 1 × M1919, M60, MAG, MG3, etc GPMG
      Cannon ammunition: 65
      MG ammunition: 3200
      Elevation: +25/-12
      Penetration with T53 Shot, 10.9 kg at 976 m/s:
      100 m: 22.2 cm
      500 m: 20.0 cm
      1000 m: 17.9 cm
      2000 m: 14.3 cm
      Armor
      Upper Hull: 76.2 mm / 30 °
      Lower Hull: 76.2 mm / 45 °
      Rear Hull: 38.1 mm / 90 °
      Hull Roof: 25.4 mm
      Hull Floor: 25.4 mm
      Turret Mantlet: 152.4 mm / 90 °
      Turret Front: 152.4 mm / 90 °
      Rear Turret: 90 mm / 90 °
      Turret Roof: 50.8 mm
      Mobility
      Engine: Depends on variant, often AV-1790 w/ CD-850 transmission or Meteor with Merrit-Brown Z.51.R transmission. Variant with Ford GAA and syncromesh transmission also trialled.
      Displacement: Depends on variant
      Gears (F / R): Depends on variant
      Power to weight ratio: Depends on variant
      Top speed: Depends on variant
      Suspension: Depends on variant
      Fuel storage: Depends on variant
      Range: Depends on variant
      Track width: Depends on variant
       
       
    • By Collimatrix
      Here at Sturgeon's House, we do not shy from the wholesale slaughter of sacred cows.  That is, of course, provided that they deserve to be slaughtered.
       
      The discipline of Military Science has, perhaps unavoidably, created a number of "paper tigers," weapons that are theoretically attractive, but really fail to work in reality.  War is a dangerous sort of activity, so most of the discussion of it must, perforce, remain theoretical.  Theory and reality will at some point inevitably diverge, and this creates some heartaches for some people.  Terminal, in some cases, such as all those American bomber crews who could never complete a tour of duty over Fortress Europe because the pre-war planners had been completely convinced that the defensive armament of the bombers would be sufficient to see them through.
       
      In other cases though, the paper tiger is created post-facto, through the repetition of sloppy research without consulting the primary documents.  One of the best examples of a paper tiger is the Tiger tank, a design which you would think was nearly invincible in combat from reading the modern hype of it, but in fact could be fairly easily seen off by 75mm armed Shermans, and occasionally killed by scout vehicles.  Add to this chronic, never-solved reliability problems, outrageous production costs, and absurd maintenance demands (ten hours to change a single road wheel?), and you have a tank that really just wasn't very good.
       
      And so it is time to set the record straight on another historical design whose legend has outgrown its actual merit, the British EM-2:
       

       
      EM-2ology is a sadly under-developed field of study for gun nerds.  There is no authoritative book on the history and design of this rifle.  Yes, I am aware of the Collector's Grade book on the subject.  I've actually read it and it isn't very good.  It isn't very long, and it is quite poorly edited, among other sins devoting several pages to reproducing J.B.S. Haldane's essay On Being the Right Size in full.  Why?!!?!!
       
      On top of that, there's quite a bit of misinformation that gets repeated as gospel.  Hopefully, this thread can serve as a collection point for proper scholarship on this interesting, but bad design.
       
      Question One:  Why do you say that the EM-2 was bad?  Is it because you're an American, and you love trashing everything that comes out of Airstrip One?  Why won't America love us?  We gave you your language!  PLEASE LOVE ME!  I AM SO LONELY NOW THAT I TOLD THE ENTIRE REST OF EUROPE TO FUCK OFF.
       
       
      Answer:  I'm saying the EM-2 was a bad design because it was a bad design.  Same as British tanks, really.  You lot design decent airplanes, but please leave the tanks, rifles and dentistry to the global superpower across the pond that owns you body and soul.  Oh, and leave cars to the Japanese.  To be honest, Americans can't do those right either.
       
      No, I'm not going to launch into some stupid tirade about how all bullpup assault rifle designs are inherently a poor idea.  I would agree with the statement that all such designs have so far been poorly executed, but frankly, very few assault rifles that aren't the AR-15 or AK are worth a damn, so that's hardly surprising.  In fact, the length savings that a bullpup design provides are very attractive provided that the designer takes the ergonomic challenges into consideration (and this the EM-2 designers did, with some unique solutions).
       
      Actually, there were two problems with the EM-2, and neither had anything to do with being a bullpup.  The first problem is that it didn't fucking work, and the second problem is that there was absolutely no way the EM-2 could have been mass-produced without completely re-thinking the design.
       
      See this test record for exhaustive documentation of the fact that the EM-2 did not work.  Points of note:
       
      -In less than ten thousand rounds the headspace of two of the EM-2s increased by .009 and .012 inches.  That is an order of magnitude larger than what is usually considered safe tolerances for headspace.
       
      -The EM-2 was less reliable than an M1 Garand.  Note that, contrary to popular assertion, the EM-2 was not particularly reliable in dust.  It was just less unreliable in dust than the other two designs, and that all three were less reliable than an M1 Garand.
       
      -The EM-2 was shockingly inaccurate with the ammunition provided and shot 14 MOA at 100 yards.  Seriously, look it up, that's what the test says.  There are clapped-out AKs buried for years in the Laotian jungle that shoot better than that.
       
      -The EM-2 had more parts breakages than any other rifle tested.
       
      -The EM-2 had more parts than any other rifle tested.
       
      -The fact that the EM-2 had a high bolt carrier velocity and problems with light primer strikes in full auto suggests it was suffering from bolt carrier bounce.
       
       
      As for the gun being completely un-suited to mass production, watch this video:
       
       
       
      Question Two:  But the EM-2 could have been developed into a good weapon system if the meanie-head Yanks hadn't insisted on the 7.62x51mm cartridge, which was too large and powerful for the EM-2 to handle!
       
      Anyone who repeats this one is ignorant of how bolt thrust works, and has done zero research on the EM-2.  In other words, anyone who says this is stupid and should feel bad for being stupid.  The maximum force exerted on the bolt of a firearm is the peak pressure multiplied by the interior area of the cartridge case.  You know, like you'd expect given the dimensional identities of force, area and pressure, if you were the sort of person who could do basic dimensional analysis, i.e. not a stupid one.
       
      Later version of the British 7mm cartridge had the same case head diameter as the 7.62x51mm NATO, so converting the design to fire the larger ammunition was not only possible but was actually done.  In fact, most the EM-2s made were in 7.62x51mm.  It was even possible to chamber the EM-2 in .30-06.
       
      I'm not going to say that this was because the basic action was strong enough to handle the 7x43mm, and therefore also strong enough to handle the 7.62x51mm NATO, because the headspace problems encountered in the 1950 test show that it really wasn't up to snuff with the weaker ammunition.  But I think it's fair to say that the EM-2 was roughly equally as capable of bashing itself to pieces in 7mm, 7.62 NATO or .30-06 flavor.
       
       
      Question Three:  You're being mean and intentionally provocative.  Didn't you say that there were some good things about the design?
       
      I did imply that there were some good aspects of the design, but I was lying.  Actually, there's only one good idea in the entire design.  But it's a really good idea, and I'm actually surprised that nobody has copied it.
       
      If you look at the patent, you can see that the magazine catch is extremely complicated.  However, per the US Army test report the magazine and magazine catch design were robust and reliable.
       
      What makes the EM-2 special is how the bolt behaves during a reload.  Like many rifles, the EM-2 has a tab on the magazine follower that pushes up the bolt catch in the receiver.  This locks the bolt open after the last shot, which helps to inform the soldier that the rifle is empty.  This part is nothing special; AR-15s, SKSs, FALs and many other rifles do this.
       
      What is special is what happens when a fresh magazine is inserted.  There is an additional lever in each magazine that is pushed by the magazine follower when the follower is in the top position of the magazine.  This lever will trip the bolt catch of the rifle provided that the follower is not in the top position; i.e. if the magazine has any ammunition in it.
       
      This means that the reload drill for an EM-2 is to fire the rifle until it is empty and the bolt locks back, then pull out the empty magazine, and put in a fresh one.  That's it; no fussing with the charging handle, no hitting a bolt release.  When the first magazine runs empty the bolt gets locked open, and as soon as a loaded one is inserted the bolt closes itself again.  This is a very good solution to the problem of fast reloads in a bullpup (or any other firearm).  It's so clever that I'm actually surprised that nobody has copied it.
       
      Question Four:  But what about the intermediate cartridge the EM-2 fired?  Doesn't that represent a lost opportunity vis a vis the too powerful 7.62 NATO?
       
      Sort of, but not really.  The 7mm ammunition the EM-2 fired went through several iterations, becoming increasingly powerful.  The earliest versions of the 7mm ammunition had similar ballistics to Soviet 7.62x39mm, while the last versions were only a hair less powerful than 7.62x51mm NATO.
       
      As for the 7mm ammunition having some optimum balance between weight, recoil and trajectory, I'm skeptical.  The bullets the 7mm cartridges used were not particularly aerodynamic, so while they enjoyed good sectional density and (in the earlier stages) moderate recoil, it's not like they were getting everything they could have out of the design.
       

      note the flat base
       
      In addition, the .280 ammunition was miserably inaccurate.  Check the US rifle tests; the .280 chambered proto-FAL couldn't hit anything either.
×
×
  • Create New...