D.E. Watters

1:50, looks like a CB-52 in the cache, as well:


There are other rare guns, too, including what appears to be a CETME Model A, and what is labeled as a CETME Model B.

QTS-11, also known as ZH-05 is adopted for service in PLA. 5.8 automatic carabine and 20 mm grenade launcher (single shot). Photos from Yuri's Lyamin post.



More in spoilers:
It looks much more compact than another Asian OICW like Daewoo K11 because chinese OICW is equipped with just a single shot 20 mm GL.

 

Here is the full article from the May/June 1979 issue of American Handgunner.

http://americanhandgunner.com/1979issues/HMJ79.pdf#page=36

Here is the full article from the May/June 1979 issue of American Handgunner.

http://americanhandgunner.com/1979issues/HMJ79.pdf#page=36

Efimov's pistolet - PE10 in .40 S&W (sport pistol).
 

So yeah, maybe I gonna show here some of the more recent development. Let's start with our latest projects, the MSBS and PR-15.
MSBS (Modułowy System Broni Strzeleckiej - Modular Small Arms System) as it's codename says is program focused on developing new family of modular small arms for military, law enforcement and civilian use.
The first variant is developed for NATO 5.56x45mm cartridge.
What is interesting is that MSBS is based on a single, common upper receiver to which various modules can be attached thus creating several weapons types in both classic and bullpup configuration.


1. From top to bottom in classic configuration.
- Carbine
- Rifle
- Rifle + under barrel granade launcher
- Magazine fed LMG
- Marksman rifle
- Ceremonial rifle
2. From top to bottom in bullpup configuration.
- Carbine
- Rifle
- Rifle + under barrel granade launcher
- Magazine fed LMG
- Marksman rifle

Also MSBS for 7.62x51mm cartridge is being in development, both as marksman rifle to replace the SVD, and also as a battle rifle.

MSBS was also adopted for 7.62x39mm cartridge seen here compared to 5.56x45mm variant.

Also a 12 gauge shotgun variant is considered and seems to be in early development stage.
Worth to mention is that also a 40mm UBGL was redesigned.

Original design was replaced with new, more classic and more compact one.



Also older GPBO-40 and other types of UBGL can be used.



 
Here is episode of Our Army where we can see a great presentation of MSBS ergonomics and functionality. It starts at 3:20.
Few words of my own experience with the rifle, it's a bit heavier than standard wz.96 Beryl rifle I am now issued with as a reservist in the army, however MSBS is extremely ergonomic, in terms of ergonomy it's better than AR15 or G36 I also had chance to get some time with.

Also during last MSPO I talked with one of the FB engineers working on the project and it seems everything is going well, rifle meet and as I was said even exceeded reliability requirements.

MSBS will also receive new magazines despite a fact it can use standard STANAG mags.

A standard 30 round magazine.

10 round magazine.

Special magazine for blanks only for use in ceremonial rifle variant.
Another new weapon designed by Fabryka Broni is new service pistol PR-15 it's general design can be called evolution of MAG-95/98 pistol, also designed by Fabryka Broni, it's fully ambidextreous, and is a really nice pistol, also had it in my hands during last MSPO and it feels good, very ergonomic.


 
That's all for now.

Fucking brutality from TIN:

At least you aren't as likely to shoot yourself in the hand when your vertical foregrip breaks loose from the plastic accessory rail.

At least you aren't as likely to shoot yourself in the hand when your vertical foregrip breaks loose from the plastic accessory rail.

Is this site any good? They have a lot of very nice photos.
 
http://m1919tech.com/12903.html
 

Let the GAO award protests begin!

Let the GAO award protests begin!

The most interesting guns at Range Day were bolts and revolvers. FML.

FWIW:  Dan Coonan played with a rimless .41 Magnum as it would fit the .357 Magnum's breechface without modification.  However, none of these hit the market.  Lee Jurras came up with the .41 JMP wildcat for the original Auto Mag, but it was merely a necked down .44 AMP.

Sorry for the shit-tier photo, my light box did not survive the move (by which I mean I think one of my buddies threw it out):

Here are some less-seen pictures of the EM-2:
 

 
"Brigadier Lindsay of the British Army presented an EM2 rifle to the Springfield Armory Benton Small Arms Museum"
 

 
A field-stripped view of the EM-2.  You can see the extra lobe on the back of the magazine that houses the automatic bolt closure mechanism.
 

 
EM-2 and STG-44.  Just chilling.
 

 
Size comparison of the EM-2 carbine variant, a regular EM-2 and a proto-FAL
 

 
An early(?) EM-2, then called the "Mamba."  Note the different sight and handguard.
 

 
Not an EM-2, but an EM-1, which was called the "Cobra."
 
More EM-2 goodness
 
A whole mess of EM-2 porn

The requirement in MIL-C-9963 (USAF)  dated 24 January 1963 was for a complete penetration of a 0.135" mild steel plate at 500 yds.

Grant and Ryan have corrupted you!  I still have a bad taste from an original S9 I handled.  How early, you ask?  It still had the Garand-esque triggerguard safety.  The trigger felt like it was never going to release.  The minuscule trigger stroke combined with an uber-heavy pull made it impossible to use.  I was constantly checking to see if the safety or key lock was accidentally engaged.

Grant and Ryan have corrupted you!  I still have a bad taste from an original S9 I handled.  How early, you ask?  It still had the Garand-esque triggerguard safety.  The trigger felt like it was never going to release.  The minuscule trigger stroke combined with an uber-heavy pull made it impossible to use.  I was constantly checking to see if the safety or key lock was accidentally engaged.

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.

Let me guess.  You had the two capture assists which gave you a big bump in base XP.  Then you have the premium ship bonus to XP.  First win of the day also doubled your base XP.  

The uber high credits came from completing the Shipsgiving Cruiser mission.  Each class-specific Shipsgiving mission is worth 1 million credits.

He got cocky, and was careless.  Thankfully, he chose the right troopers to stay behind.   It could have easily resulted in a mission failure, if not a complete squad wipe. 
 

Apparently the Bulkin AB-46 had a similar style of bolt cam: