D.E. Watters

It is a HK GR9S.  It is a variant of the HK23E with an integral optic and sand camo finish.  There was also a woodland camo variant named the GR9C.
 

It is a HK GR9S.  It is a variant of the HK23E with an integral optic and sand camo finish.  There was also a woodland camo variant named the GR9C.
 

My major issue right now is folks who can't bother to learn the Zone game mode.  It is a Fast Cap match.  Someone has to be in the cap circle at all times, or at least stick close by so they can hop inside at a moment's notice.  I've seen the Zone capped without any kills by either side.  The losing team was playing it like a regular Encounter or Domination mode.

Col. Dean on the Maximi:
"The Mk48 is a bit unreliable -- it's a scaled up Mk46, which is a net improvement on the M249, but when they scaled it up they didn't reinforce many of the components sufficiently to handle the heavier 7.62mm firing loads. And, frankly, it suffers from being a bit too heavy while having too short a barrel to take advantage of the 7.62mm round. It's a decent enough close-range assault gun (so suitable for the SEALS who originally adopted it), but a pretty poor fit otherwise for either the AR or LMG roles. Trying to make an LMG from an MMG-type system results in pretty poor net tradeoffs. We had conventional Army units experiment with both Mk46 and Mk48 in Afghanistan and while both had some advocates no overwhelming case could be made.
If you want a 7.62mm weapon in the squad and are willing to pay the weight penalty -- which is even greater in ammo than in the weapon -- then OK. Given the complains the USMC and US Army have about weight of the M249 system, selecting a Mk48 instead strikes me as an even poorer choice -- if you're willing to take the increased weight of the ammo, might as well get a full MMG. The MG3 is a good choice if you don't like the heavier M240."

i seem to remember comments in Hatcher or elsewhere about the fatigue aspect of prolonged firing with the Springfield '03 versus the Garand.  Between the recoil and repeated operation of the bolt handle, the Springfield test shooters were wrecked after firing a basic load of ammunition. 

The Dresden is rapidly becoming my favorite seal clubber.  I recently had an 8 kill win with a pair of Double Strikes and a Confederate.  More importantly, it featured my first Solo Warrior award for surviving alone against four or more enemy ships.  It was truly epic.

I can't wait until I get my range boost skill.  I'll follow that with the ROF buff.

Alright guys, I turned up some pretty exciting stuff on Soviet assault rifles recently (thanks in part to Daniel's guidance on what book to choose, but a lot of internet sources helped, too). But first, let's have a quick laugh at some hoch logic:
 
 
With that out of the way, I recently learned that the talented designers of the Soviet Union during or immediately after World War II produced not one, not two, not three, but NINE distinct assault rifle designs which underwent testing. An article describing to some degree these rifles will go up Wednesday morning; I cranked it out as quickly as I could. 
 
Here is a forum page/post thingie with some photos of prototype Russian assault rifles (some from WWII and some after). 

Here is... I dunno what it is, but it was useful.

So last time at Rock Island the machine guns went for a surprisingly little amount of money. I am not sure why, but I put in a "fuck it, this is a low bid and I probably won't win it" bid on this:
 
 

 

Found this article while looking through a 1921 issue of the Ordnance Journal.  I have to admit, I had not heard of this gun before, but firearms are not really my thing.  I figured some of you might find it interesting.  
 

Paging Mr. Khand-E, Mr. Khand-E to the front please:
 
 
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=525495148
 

 

 
This may be the only 5.56 type 81 in the world.
I know they were imported for approximately 1 month before the 1989 EO banning them (and know of only 4 total in the USA in civilian hands).

Just got this from RIA today:
 

Sturgeon's idea for an article got me thinking. It seems gun myths are rarely challenged, and if they are, they tend to either:
 
a) Take one step forward and two steps back. As in they refute the main myth, but spout 2 or 3 more in the process.
 
b ) Get drowned out by all of the myths' weird supporters with arguments usually starting about their "sniper grandpas in WWII" even if it's about M16s in Vietnam or something.
 
c) Just get lost underneath the constant shoveling of more content by other channels propagating the myths.
 
I honestly wouldn't mind a Mythbusters version of a lot of these. Show how impractical the "garand ping" myths are when you can barely hear the ping in combat, the ping barely happens when you bounce it against a helmet, gun battles aren't fought like a Call of Duty match, etc. But also try to do a setup that supports the myth to see if it can be recreated in any capacity. Forgotten Weapons does a good job of teaching and confronting misinformation, but Ian doesn't exactly make too many videos that will hold the attention of the average goober for too long. I guess the problem would end up being a big mixture of safety issues, cost, video makers' integrity (in lots of regards, including scientific), and resources (including time for filming and editing). A man can dream, though.

One might suggest that the StG44's layout of forming the magazine well integral to the upper with the trigger group hinged behind it was carried over to other designs. First and foremost, there was its heir-apparent, the Mauser StG45, which gave birth to the CETME and HK families.  You also had the FN FAL.

Actually, it is the MCX, not the 516.

The Tier 2 German cruiser Dresden is a wonderful little woodpecker.  The guns are not powerful, but there are plenty of them and they reload quickly.  Just scored 278 hits.  It was glorious.

*cracks fingers*

Something that has interested me for a while, are shape stabilised projectiles. As in, projectiles that are stable due to their shape. Everybody has heard of rotation stabilised and fin stabilised projectiles, but shape stabilised is kind of different. I guess most of you here have seen shape stabilised projectiles without actually knowing how and why they work.

Geek sidenote: Fin stabilised projectiles are actually fin and rotation stabilised.

As I said, shape stabilised projectile have a stable flight path due to their unique shape.

Figure 1: A 84mm Carl Gustav shape stabilised HEAT-round

Note the slightly ogive front and the stand-off, which are characteristic of shape stabilised projectiles (SSP). Both features are absolutely crucial for the SSP to work.
I'm going to throw you guys into the deep end by showing a .gif of the airflow in front of an SSP.
Here's a link because I can't embed .gifv apparently
The first thing you should notice is the air circulating in some-sort of pocket, and that this airflow is subsonic. Before I continue, here's the airflow in front of a blunt projectile: Clicketyclick
While that projectile has a subsonic airflow in front of it as well, it is not circulating.

Here's the airspeed of both projectiles as a normal picture:

Figure 2: Airspeed in front of an SSP


Figure 3: Airspeed in front of a blunt projectile

It's clear that an SSP has a ogive-shaped subsonic airpocket in front of the projectile. This basically emulates the ogive of a normal rotation stabilised projectile. In other words, it makes it more aerodynamic. But does that airpocket stabilise the projectile?
No it does not.

So why is this projectile stabilised? The key is in what happens when it starts to tumble. Right now, there is nothing stopping the projectile from tumbling, and that's the interesting thing. There is literally nothing stopping the projectile from tumbling, except...


the projectile itself.

Lets take a look at what happens when an SSP starts to tumble. (If I remember correctly, I rotated the projectile 10 degrees)
First off, the airflow in front of the projectile. It's fairly obvious that the airflow has changed. Lets check that again, but this time as a picture.

Figure 4: Airflow in front of a tumbling SSP

Again, it's obvious that the airflow has changed. The subsonic pocket has mainly shifted to one side and the air itself isn't really circulating in the pocket. This change causes a huge change in the Cd of the projectile. Let me show you why.

Figure 5: Pressure in front of a tumbling SSP

Next, the pressure in front of an SSP flying straight.

Figure 6: Pressure in front of an SSP flying straight

Please note the approximate pressure in front of both projectiles. The tumbling projectile has, on one side, twice the pressure as the projectile that's flying straight. Very interesting. What's even more interesting is that the pressure occurs on the opposite of the side it's turning to! The projectile is turning upwards, but the pressure builds up at the bottom. This pressure forces the projectile to start turning down again, forcing the projectile in a state where the pressure on all sides is equal.

Voila, a shape stabilised projectile.


But... why does it work?

The subsonic airpocket is created by the stand-off and that little flange, or whatever you want to call it. The dimensions and placement of both are equally important. The stand-off and its side create the airpocket and the flange give the airpocket the required shape. The stand-off size can vary, but the flange size and placement is very important. If the flange is too far forward or too far back, the airpocket will be either too small or too big. Why does the size of the pocket matter? Because of this:

Figure 7: Subsonic pocket in front of an SSP

I changed the parameters slightly and made all airflow above Mach 1 red. Whatever is not red, is trans- or subsonic. The interesting thing to note here, is the pocket extends to the edge of the projectile (if I made the projectile better it should be exactly on the edge). (Sidenote: Here's the same picture of an SSP at a 10° angle)
While the airpocket does not start at the flange, the flange determines where the pocket starts. If, at this velocity, the flange was further back, there would be supersonic flow hitting the front of the projectile, massively increasing drag. If the flange was further forward, the airpocket would be further forward too. This would mean the airpocket would not end at the edge of the projectile, but further out. Creating an airpocket which is wider than the projectile. This would allow the projectile to tumble a bit, because pressures wouldn't change much unless there is supersonic flow hitting the projectile.

It is also possible to change the size of the airpocket by changing the front of the projectile itself. If the radius connecting the front and the stand-off is too big, the airflow inside the pocket would disrupt the circulation. The same would happen if the radius is too small. The angle of the front is important as well, but I haven't expermented that much with it so I don't know how important it exactly is, but it has an effect on the airflow.

By the way, if the flange did not exist at all, the airpocket would start at around a third to half of the stand-off. Which would completely ruin the airpocket. Without a flange, the stand-off itself would have to be way bigger and longer to create the same kind of airpocket.

But Bronezhilet, I hear you cry, if the airspeed changes, the pocket changes as well!

I'm glad you brought that up, because you are right.

A shape stabilised projectile only works properly within a certain flight envelope. If the projectile is moving too fast, the airpocket would compress allowing supersonic flow to hit the front of the projectile. Which in turns increases drag. By a lot. If the projectile is moving too slow the airpocket widens, allowing the projectile to tumble a bit before it would stabilise.

I've been brainstorming with Colli a bit, and we've come to the conclusion that is why some projectiles are both shape stabilised and fin stabilised. When the projectile is moving too slow for shape stabilisation, the fins would keep it pointing in the right direction.



And that concludes today's lesson. Thank you for reading.

For you Nathaniel:
 
http://www.rockislandauction.com/viewitem/aid/66/lid/3595
http://www.rockislandauction.com/viewitem/aid/66/lid/3597
http://www.rockislandauction.com/viewitem/aid/66/lid/3596
 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

Perhaps it is just me, but don't the new Hornady "Heat Shield" tips look suspiciously like Lite-Brite pegs?

Perhaps it is just me, but don't the new Hornady "Heat Shield" tips look suspiciously like Lite-Brite pegs?

Perhaps it is just me, but don't the new Hornady "Heat Shield" tips look suspiciously like Lite-Brite pegs?

Big news for boliphiles, HWS III is done and ready to be sent to the printers.

Ah.
This is distressing, considering that I now imagine the office christmas party as consisting of your boss handing out bullets and egg-nog before you all shoot at an effigy of TTAG.

It's not just any Webley...It's a Webley-Fosbery!
 

I once suggested "we" make a snubby GP-100 (as in a 1.75" barrel and abbreviated grip) and was told "Ruger does not make saturday night specials".