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

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

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

   From Army 2020 expo, about RPL-20

Quote

> A prototype of the new RPL-20 machine gun for the Ministry of Defense. What exactly did not suit the military in the RPK-16, that the RPL-20 had to be developed
   According to Onokoi, the military demanded ribbon feed at 5.45. By the way, he was very proud of the fact that they managed to make the tape under 5.45 (A very great achievement and no analogues)

 

> Does the appearance of the RPL-20 mean a complete failure (abandonment) of the RPK-16? What type of feed is used - pure belt, or belt + mags? Which belt is used - disintegrating or non-dis.? Will the issue with the loading machine for equipping machine-gun belts, which has not yet been resolved in the Poplin topic, be resolved? How RPK-400 and RPL-20 are related to the competitions Tokar and Tokar-2.
   I'll tell you right away. There are TWO RPL-20. One which is now and which will be.
   Now - this is a crude prototype that shoots very accurately and in general he liked it, and what will happen in the future - fuck knows. But the fact that it will change and in the end visually will be different is 100% sure.
   Not. Not a failure. The machine is working and Onoko liked it. RPK-16 did not suit the military because they wanted to shoot with belts. Whole ammoload is purely belt. Belt is non-dis.. There is a loading machine for equipment, but as I understand it, it is one for the whole Concern;)))

   > RPK-400 and RPL-20 are related to the competitions Tokar and Tokar-2.
And here Onokoi didn't answered

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

   TsNII Precision Engineering (TsNIITOCHMASH, part of the Rostec state corporation) presented for the first time a pistol for special forces PSS-2, which has a minimum noise level. A representative of the enterprise told TASS about it during the international military-technical forum "Army-2020".

   The PSS-2 differs from the PSS-1 pistol, which was put into service in 1984, in its bolt carrier and firing mechanism, in which elements of the modernized Serdyukov SR-1M self-loading pistol are used," the agency's interlocutor said.

   The PSS-2 pistol is chambered for the new SP-16 cartridge, which was put into service in 2011. "This cartridge is distinguished by increased penetration - if earlier the PSS could not penetrate personal protective equipment, then the PSS-2 is able to cope with them at close range," the specialist noted.

   Unlike the PSS, the PSS-2 is equipped with an under-barrel rail for target designators and flashlights, a side magazine release button and an ergonomic grip. “The sound of a shot, however, is practically silent,” added a representative of TsNIITOCHMASH. The pistol is a serial product, he noted.

 

8Oa29Ar.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This is a deactivated weapon that fires blank cartridges. Who will give a military weapon in the hands of a Russian civilian?))) 

What if he steals it? Or take a cartridge out of his pocket and kill someone? 

This is a show that has been repeated for many years on different holidays. This weapon is well known.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

   6P29M "Vintorez-M", let's call this a review of the gun/impressions.

5ef96742daf86-1593403202.jpg

 

Quote

   Of the visible changes, attention is immediately drawn to the new skeletal-type metal stock with a length-adjustable buttplate and a height-adjustable cheek piece. The next visible difference is the lack of a side rail. Its function is now carried by the Picatinny rail mounted on the hinged cover of the receiver.

 

5ef967430f4a0-1593403203.jpg

 

1593281055-1.jpg

 

Quote

   The place of the PSO-1M2-1 sight is now taken by the 1P86 sight of variable magnification, which changes discretely, having two values: 1X and 4X.


   Further changes concern the configuration of the rifle. Now the kit of the modernized Vintorez includes four 10-round and four 20-round magazines. The latter is, obviously, a positive moment, since shooting from Vintorez and similar weapons is always conducted at short ranges, extremely rarely exceeding the 100-meter line, and in these situations, the increased magazine capacity provides a significantly higher practical rate of fire. If earlier fighters tried to grab at least one "Val" mags on a "business trip", now this issue can be considered closed. It is a little frustrating that a magazine pouch is not included in the package. I would like to believe that in the future this problem will be eliminated. As before, the kit includes a carrying sling for the rifle. Unlike the wide "automatic" belt 6Sh5, which was previously included in the kit, which has high strength and close to optimal rigidity, the VSSM is equipped with a narrow and extremely "rotatable" belt. In addition, the VSSM rifle does not have a rear swivel, and therefore the owner will have to fantasize about "where to attach the belt". I will say right away that my imagination was not enough: it was not possible to find a place, when attaching the belt to which carrying the rifle was convenient and at the same time the belt would not interfere with the manipulation of the weapon.


   The bipod has become an absolutely new element with which the VSSM is equipped. The bipod is installed on the Picatinny rail. The rails are located at the bottom and on both sides of the bracket, which is put on the supressor and fixed on it with screws tightening the bracket. The design of the bipod is such that the minimum height of the line of fire when firing from the bipod exceeds 220 mm and is excessive. It will not be possible to "creep" over the surface, minimizing the silhouette, when shooting with the proposed bipod like "a la Harris".

 

   In addition to the bipod, other elements can be installed on the clip, for example, the included forwrd grip. The presence of this grip in a rifle kit is a moot point, since a rifle is not an assault weapon. Of course, it is impossible to call having a grip a disadvantage, but the advisability of installing it on a rifle is questionable.

 

   The last element that distinguishes the VSSM package from the previous Vintorez is the additional link of the ramrod. Now the ramrod is screwed in two parts and has almost twice the length, which greatly facilitates cleaning the rifle silencer.

 

1596902242-img-20200527-152546.jpg

 

Quote

   In principle, the ergonomic parameters of the new "Vintorez-M" due to the adjustable butt plate and cheek piece can be adjusted within a fairly wide range, providing a comfortable fit for shooting from different positions for shooters with different anthropometric data. In the photo above, both the adjustment elements themselves and the mechanisms for their fixing are clearly visible. It's simple: loosen the nuts, set the butt plate and cheek to the desired position, tighten the nuts. The adjustment is completed, everything about everything took 10-15 seconds, no more!


   Yes ... I was dreaming, sorry. This is Russia, a country of harsh and strong warriors who cannot imagine their lives without difficulties, hardships and despise the effeminate and cutesy, effeminate NATO servicemen mired in sodomy and same-sex marriage.


   Please welcome! The photo below shows the Steel Finger simulator developed by the best minds of the Russian defense industry for servicemen of the RF Armed Forces and other security agencies. I have never observed such a serious and comprehensive approach to personnel training in 20-plus years of close handling of a wide variety of weapons. I am sure that regular exercises on this simulator will raise the strength indicators of the military personnel to whom these products will be assigned to a completely new, previously unattainable level.

 

1596902775-img-20200527-153317.jpg

 

Quote

   Let's step back a bit from ergonomics and talk about techniques. The butt plate and cheek guides are fixed by the frictional force between the guide rods and the corresponding cylindrical surfaces of the butt body. The force required to apply on 15 mm shoulder to the nuts to ensure reliable fixation of the guides due to friction is no less than 25-30 kg. Most likely even more. The specific value was not checked with a dynamometer, but it was possible to fix both the butt plate and the cheek only by using the ramrod link as a lever. At the same time, the effort on this lever was about 5-10 kg. Of course, trying to loosen the nuts with bare hands after that was initially a failure, but I tried. Even with gritting teeth, it is impossible to unscrew the nuts. But to injure your fingers is easy.
   Clinging to the little things, I will ride along the design of the cheek.

 

1596904410-img-20200527-152852.jpg

 

Quote

   A small wooden block screwed to the base with six countersunk self-tapping screws purchased from the nearest Krepmarket or a construction market at the intersection of Mosin and Frunze streets. It is clear that countersinking for countersunk heads is very expensive and unprofitable, TOZ will be ruined if it begins countersinking all the holes for screws and self-tapping screws with countersunk heads. But still, honestly, the heads of the self-tapping screws sticking out outward lead to amazement and give rise to disbelief in the seriousness of the manufacturer's approach to it's brainchild.


   The next stage of the travel along the butt will be the actual operation. The fact that an adjustable butt, can only be adjusted once at the base before exiting to mission is already clear. Do not carry the secret lever with you always and everywhere, right?


   As before, the stock can be detached from the receiver for covert transportation of the rifle. The butt attachment assembly has not undergone any changes and is a dovetail guide with a locking mechanism.


   Unlike the “warm” and pleasant-to-touch stock of the "progenitor", made of glued bakelized plywood, the metal butt of the VSSM is perceived tactilely differently. So, in hot or cold weather, when gripping with a bare hand, the shooter experiences some discomfort. As far as I know, work is underway to develop a polyamide stock, but at the moment the date for the appearance of a rifle with a polyamide stock has not been determined.

 

1596907906-priklad-6p29m.jpg

 

1596907917-vss.jpg

 

Quote

   In general, the "grandfather's" stock seems to be more practical and quite comfortable. Practicality and convenience are slightly different things. The VSSM stock in any configuration may be more convenient for someone, but it is unlikely that it will become more practical than the plywood stock of the old Vintorez. This is the private opinion of the old grump and critic, which does not pretend to be true, but rather extensive personal experience allows us to count on a high degree of objectivity.


   From the stock, let's go further, to the receiver, forend and barrel with an integrated silencer

 

1596982108-vssm-sleva.jpg

 

Quote

   The changes affected both the exterior and interior of the rifle. I will not go into details describing changes in the design of mechanisms and parts of the weapon's automatics. I can only say one thing: they do exist and should provide the "baby" with an advantage over the "parent" in terms of increasing the survivability of parts, increasing the reliability of work in normal and difficult operating conditions, and accuracy. If with the first two characteristics, clarity will come gradually, as the experience of practical operation in various units is accumulated, then with accuracy and groups we are able to figure it out on the very first practical firing. Which, in fact, was done.

 

I   t should be noted here that, by and large, one should understand only the group sizes are beind measured, since precision is ensured by the correct preparation of the weapon to normal combat. So, according to the results of shooting from a "prone position" at 100 meters with SP-5 cartridges in series of 5 shots, the leader could not be identified: in terms of accuracy of shooting, both "grandfather" and "granddaughter" are practically on par. From each sample, three series of shots were fired using a standard optical sight and two series with a mechanical sight. At the same time, due to the peculiarities of the approaches to design "then" and "now", the shooting of the "grandfather" took place much faster. The reason is that the shooting was carried out according to the "optics-mechanics-optics-mechanics-optics" scheme. If with the "grandfather" everything is simple and clear: I worked five episodes in succession and went to see the result, then with the "grandson" it is more difficult: after each episode with a telescopic sight, I had to take it off to work with the "mechanics". Accordingly, next it was required to carefully and accurately install the "optics" back.

 

   The reason is simple: with an installed optical or other sight, the “mechanic” is not visible from the “grandson”. Absolutely. Unlike "grandfather". And why "carefully and accurately" is a separate story, we will tell it in the next article. Sometime later. For now, let's return to the object of research.

 

   "Grandson" completely lost the side rail for installing sighting devices. Personally, I cannot call it anything other than sabotage. Yes, the Picatinny rail serves the same function - the base for optical and optical-electronic sights, but practically for a fighter, it carries it worse than the damn side rail.

 

   Of course, this position needs to be substantiated, at least briefly. In general, the emergence of the Picatinny rail on domestic small arms was due to the spread at the turn of the 90s and the beginning of the 2000s, first among civilian shooters, and then in special units of foreign-made aiming devices, which had certain advantages over the domestic sighting systems that were on supply...

 

   The reality was that the most widespread Soviet and Russian optical sights, in terms of their technical characteristics, were far behind the emerging products of famous manufacturers: Nightforce, Leupold & Stevens, Shmidt & Bender, Aimpoint, etc. etc. For use with domestic weapons of imported sights, brackets were first “kolhozed” by literally each owner individually. Then various adapters appeared, including those of industrial production, both from the upper "dovetail" standard for Soviet-Russian sports and hunting weapons, to the "Picatinny rail" standard. Given that at the same time period, domestic enterprises were in serious decline, and foreign manufacturers of weapons and optics entered the Russian market, offering a wide range of their products in a variety of price categories, the transition to the Picatinny bar in civilian weapons was only a matter of time determined by the growth of consumer demand.

 

   As for the army and other enforcement structures, everything here seems to be not so simple. The fact is that the vast majority of weapons in the military have historically had a side rail as a standard place for installing optical sights. Stored weapons, too. Exactly the same story with the sighting devices available in huge quantities in warehouses and in units. Thus, the absence of a side bar on a weapon made in accordance with the new trends automatically cuts off the possibility of using, in the event of failure of the standard 1P86 sight for VSSM, the practically ubiquitous PSO-1 sights and the like. The same, only to an even greater extent, applies to night sights.

 

   In addition to the indicated moment, which creates only economic and logistical problems, there are others that directly relate to the operation and use of weapons. I'll start with the question of bringing the weapon to normal combat. In accordance with the requirements of Instructions, all Soviet-Russian long-barreled small arms of normal and large caliber are brought to normal combat at a distance of 100 meters. When installing the optical sight, its initial alignment was carried out on the mechanical sight, and the optical sights installed on the side bar did not block the line of sight of the mechanical sight. With VSSM it is a different matter. It will not work to reconcile according to the "mechanics". TCP and KPPO kits are not available in every unit. Where there are - you will not always take it quickly, and if you did take it - it is not a fact that they are fully equipped and in working order. It is not always possible to "catch" at 100 meters with the first shot even for a shield the size of one and a half "chest" ones. Interesting situation, isn't it? Unlike rifles with PSZ, the VSSM will also not be able to make a "cold" alignment along the bore of the barrel: the design of the receiver does not allow to look from the breech into the barrel. Yes, you can use a mirror, but why all these dances if the "old man" "Vintorez" does not have these questions in principle?

 

   In practice, it is not uncommon for weapons to be exposed to external influences: falls, impacts during movement, especially when loading and exiting transport (far from uncommon). If on the "grandfather" the check for "knocked down or did not knock down the optics" was quickly and easily carried out at a "remote point", then the "granddaughter" has serious problems with this, which definitely does not add confidence to the fighter armed with him.

 

1596995974-1p86-pikatini.jpg

 

1596996094-1p86-sprava.jpg

 

Quote

   The next point is to replace the sight when the lighting conditions change. When the time of day during a multi-day task changes, the operator will have to "flip" the sights: remove the optics and set the "night" one, and vice versa. In the photographs it is noticeable that the new standard sight has to be removed and installed using a tool, at least primitive, such as a knife blade of a suitable size. In this case, for removal and installation, you will have to work with two screws. Re-installation is required to be performed in the same rail grooves, since, as practice shows, displacement of the sight along the rail by one groove can lead to displacement of the zero by up to 1.5 mrad. In addition, the tightening torque of the screws must also be more or less constant with each reinstallation, which is not so easy to accomplish when there is a lack of time and the absence of the appropriate tool.

 

   We will face exactly the same question when installing optical-electronic sights. And taking into account the fact that on most OEPs the screws are made for an imbus key... At the right time, by the way, either it will not be at hand, or it will be in the bowels of pockets or a raid backpack. In general, a set of tools is now a necessary piece.

 

   Unfortunately, the damn side bar is much easier.

 

1596996128-pso-1-sleva.jpg

 

Quote

   No tools or groove counting by eyesight or touch is required. Only hands and four movements: open the clamping lever - remove the scope with a backward movement - push the other sight along the bar until it stops - close the clamping lever. That's it, the scopes have been changed.

 

   Considering that Vintorez is a close range weapon, where a firing range of over 100 meters is a rarity, the ability to quickly change the type of firing from “accurate” to “very wide and fast” will be a definite plus. Again, "grandfather" is all right with this. We need it to be precise - we use the PSO-1-1 sight with 4x magnification, we need it quickly - we instantly switch to "mechanics", because nothing interferes with this. For the "granddaughter", such a number will not work, since the "mechanics" are completely blocked, the transition to the multiplicity "1" in the 1P86 sight requires the use of one of the hands to move the lever of changing the multiplicity to the appropriate position. The latter, in turn, will lead to a change in the spatial position of the weapon and the loss of time for the withdrawal of the weapon to the target area.

 

   As they say, draw preliminary conclusions, but "to be continued" ...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, SH_MM said:

C.G Haenel has beaten Heckler & Koch for the German G36 replacement program. The weapon performed a bit better and was more "economical".

 

https://augengeradeaus.net/2020/09/neues-sturmgewehr-der-bundeswehr-soll-von-haenel-kommen/

 

I find that somewhat hard to believe considering that German SOF selected the HK416A7 instead of a Haenel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2020 at 7:32 PM, SH_MM said:

C.G Haenel has beaten Heckler & Koch for the German G36 replacement program. The weapon performed a bit better and was more "economical".

 

https://augengeradeaus.net/2020/09/neues-sturmgewehr-der-bundeswehr-soll-von-haenel-kommen/

I don't think anybody was expecting that result, myself included. From what I could gather from the news and from talking people in the gun industry and German speakers it appears to be solely a case of "it meets the requirements... and is cheaper"... which itself raises questions about the result, considering the size and ownership of Haenel, some even going as far as calling it a shell company for Caracal. How much of that is true or just "foreigner man bad" I don't know.

 

As for the rifle it's quite sad to see a new design fail, even if it also met the requirements. For the Haenel I've heard that it's heritage goes both ways "designed by the same team that did the hk416 and Sig" or "A clone of a clone".

 

Let's see what legal sheenanigans will happen next.

 

 

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...