Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

The Small Arms Thread, Part 8: 2018; ICSR to be replaced by US Army with interim 15mm Revolver Cannon.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Let's all take a trip back to the late 1970s and early 1980s.  This was the time of punk.  This was the time of despair.   Punk was all about minimalism; strip everything down to a few chords, wear

So what, my 5.56 rounds are groundbreaking too if I shoot the dirt.

Stechkin's Abakan (TKB-0146). https://www.kalashnikov.ru/abakan-stechkina-avtomat-stechkina-tkb-0146/        Bullpup, system of "recoil impulse shifted in time", 2-stage

Finally. Proof that by 1944, Nazi scientists had invented artillery shells with cordless Dremels packed inside.

 

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/12/28/hell-in-my-hands-battle-of-bastogne-pistol/#disqus_thread

 

Much superior to the earlier models with the Dremels that you had to plug in before firing.

It looks a bit odd, the few real battlefield pickups I've had chances to inspect where you knew the owner was snuffed, always had that distinctive lacelike corrosion pattern caused by blood/bodily fluids.  Other than some green fuzz, the "damage" looks almost new.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks a bit odd, the few real battlefield pickups I've had chances to inspect where you knew the owner was snuffed, always had that distinctive lacelike corrosion pattern caused by blood/bodily fluids.  Other than some green fuzz, the "damage" looks almost new.

Yeah. The lack of patina/corrosion on the damage is the first initial give away. Also the damage doesn't look homogeneous but like someone worked with different tools.

 

I've handled some Japanese rifles (and a sword) that were battlefield pickups by (if I remember right) SeaBees on Tarawa. And those things looked like they were yanked out of a fox hole or a slit trench after naval gunfire, artillery and grenades had been used to kill their original owners. Also, all of the weapons had provenance such as paperwork, old photographs (or reproduced photos) of the guys who picked them up, unit numbers, dates and the damn weapons still had the original chrysanthemum stamping on the receiver. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. The lack of patina/corrosion on the damage is the first initial give away. Also the damage doesn't look homogeneous but like someone worked with different tools.

 

I've handled some Japanese rifles (and a sword) that were battlefield pickups by (if I remember right) SeaBees on Tarawa. And those things looked like they were yanked out of a fox hole or a slit trench after naval gunfire, artillery and grenades had been used to kill their original owners. Also, all of the weapons had provenance such as paperwork, old photographs (or reproduced photos) of the guys who picked them up, unit numbers, dates and the damn weapons still had the original chrysanthemum stamping on the receiver. 

I have a Type 44 that is rather unmolested, but yes, most look whipped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally. Proof that by 1944, Nazi scientists had invented artillery shells with cordless Dremels packed inside.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/12/28/hell-in-my-hands-battle-of-bastogne-pistol/#disqus_thread'>http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/12/28/hell-in-my-hands-battle-of-bastogne-pistol/#disqus_thread

Much superior to the earlier models with the Dremels that you had to plug in before firing.

The damage on that thing looks way too low-energy to be real. Even ignoring the suspiciously good condition, artillery fragments would penetrate or leave splinters, producing noticable curled edges around the impact site.

Bullets would leave friction-welded pieces of jacket or form distinctive furrowed scars if they bit in at all. The curled edges around impact sites would, again, be very obvious.

There should be various sizes of damage, including pitting from secondary fragments and possibly large distortions where major components were warped or twisted.

In short, Don has the right of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the article, but I've talked about most of the select fire versions with you and Colli on TS over the past several months, as the light rifle series has developed.  It's why I didn't comment. 

 

Edit: The gap between the articles also might have something to do with it.

 

Went from about 2.75 months to 3 months (and I can't shorten it any more because of TFB's budget), so it wasn't that much longer of a wait.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So... I note that Light Rifle IV didn't do very well, getting less than half the comments that Light Rifle III got. I'm surprised by this, because while LRIII just covered random modifications made to the M1, LRIV covered what I'd assume would be more exciting select-fire M1 conversions.

Any thoughts on this?

Few comments may simply mean that you've done a great job snd coveted the whole issue very well.

At least that's what I tell myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Other possible explanations:

Too few bun fights between famous historical figures.

No troops harmed during events.

Something something dry and techical subject matter.

Other article writer included a picture of self posing in a bikini.

Not the biggest, best, most expensive, worst etc.

Not tie-in to Hitler possibly winning WWII.

Points not given in list form.

Combinatorial factors (aka: ten pics of Hitler wearing most expensive bikini)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So... I note that Light Rifle IV didn't do very well, getting less than half the comments that Light Rifle III got. I'm surprised by this, because while LRIII just covered random modifications made to the M1, LRIV covered what I'd assume would be more exciting select-fire M1 conversions.

Any thoughts on this?

 

A few possibilities:

 

-Anything there is to cover, you covered. You layed out a realistic goal with the post, and didn't really leave any wiggle room for speculation.

 

-Lack of interest in the subject. For Turbonerds like us, detailed weapons development histories can be fascinating, but there's a reason why Ambrose outsells Zaloga, and why Ensign's Wehrabait articles tend to get actual comments versus things like factory notes on how many sprockets were produced in late 1940.

 

-Not having a conversational tone. Your article could be a really good starting point for reference work, but it's not exactly communicating with anyone in a way that creates the desire to discuss it with anonymous strangers. I remember when Alex was talking about how curious it was that videos where he put in a lot of research and production effort would often lose in views/comments to him just bullshitting with you/Ian/Pat. Well, those latter videos had a conversational tone where people felt they could elaborate upon or debate with what you said, and weren't anything more than they promised: Dudes talking 'bout their guns. Lacking conversational tone isn't really a criticism; it could just be how an article is. I'm just saying that different pieces go for different reactions.

 

-Lots of words. This is obviously a "dumb" criticism to an extent, but I rarely read large blog posts in one go. I'll cycle back through the tabs and slowly make my way through it over hours or days so that I rarely am reading it while not in the mood to. Unfortunately, once I'm done reading it, It's often three pages deep on the main site, and nobody else bothered to read it quickly and start up a conversation.

 

Those are off the top of my head, but I don't claim to have any idea what I'm talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      There are many who feel that the 5.56 NATO is a superlative rifle round. Much has been said about larger alternatives to 5.56, such as various 6.5mm and 6.8mm rounds among others. Less has been said about smaller rounds. Off the top of my head, I can recall that there was a German 4.6x36mm round, used in the HK36, and the British 4.85x49mm round. Neither of these rounds managed to gain widespread acceptance. My knowledge of the voodoo that is ballistics is somewhat limited, so I'm uncertain as to whether these failures were caused by flaws with the rounds themselves, or because they were below some lower limit of effective bullet size, beyond which performance decreases rapidly. Could we see a resurgence of these concepts in the future, or do they represent an evolutionary dead-end?

×
×
  • Create New...