Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts





I recently had an opportunity to take a look at a PS90.  These are the extended-barrel, semi-auto only version of the FN P90.  Aside from the lengthened barrel, barrel shroud, and modifications to the fire control group, they are identical to P90s.


The P90 was the correct idea at the correct time for FN Herstal.  Prior to its introduction, they had been focused on the BRG-15, a 15.5mm very heavy machine gun:




This potent weapon fired a monstrous 15mm, later 15.5mm round that edged out the 14.5x114mm round for raw power.  The idea, as I understand it, was that Conventional Forces Europe treaty restrictions limited the number of vehicles armed with autocannons that signatory nations could possess.  Heavy machine guns were substantially less restricted.


While the BRG-15 had a number of desirable features, such as selectable dual ammo feed and APDS ammunition, it did not sell, and FNH needed badly a new, hot product.


Enter the P90.  FN had been working on a new type of ammunition for a PDW for some time.  Their initial ammunition concepts had been quite exotic, featuring APDS projectiles fired from a rimfire cartridge case:






FN had grasped that a modern army is mostly support personnel; mechanics, cooks, clerks, etc, and actually only a minority are front-line combat troops.  If they could sell a weapon to arm second-line troops, and if they could get this new class of weapon to be NATO standard, they would be fat and happy once again after all the money they'd wasted on the BRG-15.

H&K thwarted them on the NATO standardization front, but FN did get comfortably back in the black, as the P90 has sold quite well.


The design of the P90 is, shall we say, heavily inspired by the Steyr AUG.




The AUG features a cast aluminum receiver, a polymer stock which houses the trigger, fire control components and magazine well, and a bolt carrier group that slides on two guide rods with internal return springs.


This is the aluminum receiver of the P90:





Here are the telltale porosity marks of casting:





Here is the polymer stock, showing the magazine well and some of the components of the trigger group:




You can also see that there is a seam between the two stock halves; wide enough to admit sunlight in some places.



And here is the back of the stock, showing the hammer pack taken out of it:




Finally, here is the bolt, which rides on twin guide rails with external return springs.  I guess that's a little different:




The P90 is a simple blowback design, which greatly reduces the cost of manufacture because there are no breech locking components that need to be made to tight tolerances or made of high-quality material.  However, this does place some constraints on the ammunition design.


Here are the sockets in the receiver, astride the barrel breech where those rods fit into:




FN wasted hardly any time coming up with something new; they simply put their new 50 round magazine into a straight-blowback AUG, and set about selling it.  There is actually a lot about the design that suggests it was somewhat rushed.  Late in the development of the P90, the ammunition was shortened by a few milimeters.  Instead of completely redesigning the whole gun and magazine:





The magazines simply feature an indentation that fills the space the original, longer rounds used to.


From a production engineering standpoint, the P90 has many admirable features.  It has a minimum of machined features, and the machined parts are very simple shapes.  The receiver is cast with some machining to final dimensions, and the stock is injection molded.  Casting and injection molding are both well-suited to cheap, high-volume production.  Parts that would be machined in other designs, such as the fire control lockwork and hammer, are injection molded in the P90.


The P90 also features a number of parts that are semi-permanently affixed to larger assemblies, and can only be serviced at an armorer level:




The charging handle and the charging handle return spring are looped around the barrel, and are not user-serviceable.




The trigger transfer bar and magazine catch components are sandwiched in-between the two stock halves.


The return springs cannot be de-mounted from the bolt either.  This is actually typical of non-US designs; the degree to which the end-user can service and modify the weapon is limited to basic field stripping.


 I remember being shocked at how fiddly and difficult it was to pull the bolt from the bolt carrier group in a TAR-21, only to find out later, reading the manual, that this is supposed to be an armorer level repair.  Apparently the bolt cannot even be removed from the bolt carrier on the new Cz 805 without tools:



To American shooters, the P90 comes off rather poorly.  It doesn't disassemble as far as they would expect, and it looks very slapped together utilitarian. For FN it was exactly the right design at the right time.  It had wide appeal and could be made in massive quantities cheaply.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Big mistake, P90 launches tiny rock, BRG-15 launches very large rock. BRG-15 > FN P90



Great post, but did you forget to finish it?


Much like our Denver journey, It's for another time.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Colli is steam powered and not Uranium powered Atomovoz?!


Fission used to boil water to turn turbines.




The mechanics of the P90 magazine are interesting, and it seems to work very well.


A big part of this is probably the ammunition itself.  Each cartridge case of 5.7x28mm is coated in very slippery teflon, which allows it to extract cleanly.  This also means that it slides nicely along the turntable ramp in the magazine.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, for the record I think the P90 is a really good gun, and I continually wonder if it would be worth owning a neutered long-barrel version.

If you knew my opinion of the FN P90, you'd probably come after me with one.





And I would not be afraid, for the FN P90 is a terrible weapon.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter, you may be able to fire rock, but it is small rock, infact, it's statisically speaking nearly only a third of rock the BRG-15 had.


FN P15 coming soon.

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.

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 Wiedzmin
      have question about 12.7x99 AP M2 cartridge  WWII time books gives muzzle velocity for AP M2 - 895 m/s for 45in barrel, modern days firing tables and manuals gives 856 m/s for 45in barrel, which is correct, or both correct but 1st for WWII and 2nd for modern dayes cartridges ?
    • By SirFlamenco
      Hi everyone, first post here 
      I stumbled across this video : 
      It’s super dense polyethylene with a neutral buoyancy core for impact resistance. It weights only 4 pounds, so for weight effiency it’s around 3 times better than ar550 and 4 times better than other ceramics ballistic plates, AND that’s while including the water, which I doubt add any bulletproof capabilities. 
      Is it just me or does it sound a bit fishy?
    • 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.
    • By Toxn
      Part 3 in a multi-part series.

      Anglo-zulu era

      Boer war era.

      Assegais and throwing spears.

      African and Indian weapons jumbled together.

      African daggers and knives.

      San arrows.

      WW1. The ballistic vest on the top left actually caught one in combat.

      Percussion brown bess!

      This has been C&Rsenal - South Africa edition.

      This has been Forgotten Weapons - South Africa edition.

      A bunch of kids here were excited to see the 'sniper guns' and talked about how far they could shoot.

      Italian stuff. The cadet rifle and the swishy thing are the most interesting to me.
  • Create New...