Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

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


Khand-e

Recommended Posts

On 6/29/2018 at 9:32 AM, Willy Brandt said:

On MG4/5 no but the rate of fire is low enough to squeeze singles of.
Also you need the recoil booster so its extracts the casings.

If you look into it it tries to capture the gasses to press the barrel backwards to unlock the bolt.
There is a sort of flash hider in the booster but it directs the flash forward.

You can try to cut down the rate of fire if you make the bolt heavier and use other return springs. There is a 650g Bolt for 1100RPM and a 900g for 800RPM

bg002p38.jpg

 

Yes, the booster creates a space between the muzzle of the barrel and the booster that fills with gas.  The gas pushes the barrel backwards.  The barrel was already retreating backwards, because it is a recoil-operated weapon, but the booster makes it go backwards even faster.  I'm not sure what exactly would happen if the booster were removed; probably the gun would short-stroke, but it might still work, just at a lower rate of fire.  I don't think that the booster is particularly required for extraction, but then the residual chamber pressure is needed for M4s to extract, so maybe the booster adds back-pressure or makes the system cycle quickly enough that there is still blowback pressure.

But there is no rule saying that the muzzle end of the booster has to be that little cup shape.  It could be replaced with a pronged flash hider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2018 at 12:06 AM, Collimatrix said:

 

Yes, the booster creates a space between the muzzle of the barrel and the booster that fills with gas.  The gas pushes the barrel backwards.  The barrel was already retreating backwards, because it is a recoil-operated weapon, but the booster makes it go backwards even faster.  I'm not sure what exactly would happen if the booster were removed; probably the gun would short-stroke, but it might still work, just at a lower rate of fire.  I don't think that the booster is particularly required for extraction, but then the residual chamber pressure is needed for M4s to extract, so maybe the booster adds back-pressure or makes the system cycle quickly enough that there is still blowback pressure.

But there is no rule saying that the muzzle end of the booster has to be that little cup shape.  It could be replaced with a pronged flash hider.

During my time, we had a case of a booster not working correctly and at least in this caseit resulted in a stoppage after the first shot. But don't ask me what exactly happened because I was busy cuddling with my own MG3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hisname said:

 

Spoiler

35403411_270487573700362_779636785567865

 

Нарукавник - 4 ? )))  "Oversleeve  - 4" - ?)) This is a joke?  Or the real name of the sight is specially changed in the photo editor to a fictional one?

Sounds normal to me. There are Russian weapon systems with stranger name than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I've heard that the USAF will add the GAU-5A to the kits of it's crew since they think that a pistol is insufficient for personal defense in hostile territory (probably rightfully so).

 

I'm definitively not too knowledgeable in small arms, but isn't a CAR-15 variant way too big to serve as a PDW (and possibly needlessly heavy as well)?

Especially if you have to stuff it in the ejection kit.

 

What where the criteria for choosing the GAU-5A instead of a proper PDW like a P90 or an MP7 (or one of their American equivalent that I don't know of)?

The only thing I can think of is that the GAU use 5,56 while the others use very specific ammo, but it's not like this weapons will have to be resupplied on the field (the crew just need to have enough ammo to survive until the rescue team arrive) or very often at all (it stay in the kit until the ammo are past their expiration date).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY2019 Defense Appropriations Act, Report 115-290.pdf

 

"M4A1 Carbine Extended Forward Rail System.—The Army’s Soldier Enhancement Program study published in December 2017 found that the United States Special Operations Command’s extended free-float rail system is substantially more accurate than the Army’s legacy M4A1 rail and readily available in the supply system. While the Committee supports the Army’s modernization strategy which calls for developing and fielding the Next Generation Squad Automatic Weapon before developing and fielding the Next Generation Soldier Weapon, the Committee remains concerned that the Army is not accelerating modest and readily available upgrades to the M4A1 Carbine and thereby improving solider lethality in the interim. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to accelerate adapting a government provided extended free-float rail system for the M4A1 carbine."

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...