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

[LoooSeR]

[LoooSeR]

Kord in Latakia, Syria

 

Syria, near Palmyra

[Khand-e]

 

Something tells me this isn't the most practical mounting for an MG.

[LoooSeR]

https://www.full30.com/video/85635a9c1b87bcc4413b0d0f8322ee2d

[Sturgeon]

I see that Tim and Eric have decided to cut out the middleman and just convert word vomit directly into legal tender.

I note that much of what Eric says about the AK is wrong - I'm sure Ulric will be in shortly to elaborate.

[LoooSeR]

Yeah, it would be interesting to see a what was wrong in this video.

[Donward]

Someone has been watching the 1982 classic "Megaforce".

I must needs get one for the Honda Foreman up here. For reasons...

[LoooSeR]

Ukrainian soldier or volunteer rifle, baed on Mosin.

[LoooSeR]

Just some AKs.

 

 

 

 

Dat muzzle device

Part of suppressor?

 

Some more of 'AK'

 

 

 

[LoooSeR]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LoooSeR]

[LoooSeR]

http://spioenkop.blogspot.de/2015/07/from-russia-with-love-syrias-osv-96.html

 

OSV-96 in Syria.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tied]

I see that Tim and Eric have decided to cut out the middleman and just convert word vomit directly into legal tender.

I note that much of what Eric says about the AK is wrong - I'm sure Ulric will be in shortly to elaborate.

 

It is wrong, but despite this

Im still an AK guy

 

For starters the Ak is just really light and ergonomic

 

The wood finish feels nice and inviting in my hands and dispite the gun being small enough to drag around, had enough weight to it to be useful in a melee fight 

 

Its just easier to haul around then say a Mosin or an SKS

You can also put just about anything your heart desires on the weapon with eaise

 

For example, a Bayonet, or maybe even a grenade launcher, and last but not least

 

The magazine is fully removable

 

Boy is this a godsend, no longer do you have to fumble with those pesky stripper clips

 

The weapon is fully automatic and even has the option for single fire which can be done quite easily, and obviously by switching the lever on the side

 

The large solid buttstock not only lends itself well in a melee fight, but has a compartment which is filled with what can only be described as a random assortment of bottle openers

 

It also, being a solid block, fits well on my mongoloid shoulders 

 

Speaking of drinking, you never have to really clean the rifle, but it dosent hurt to throw it in a river to get the mud off

 

and dont get me started on the round

 

5.45 being perfect for self defense against criminals, afghan's and hippie's as it tumbles and yaws through a target

 

and 7.62 being perfect for eradication of cinder blocks or maybe a future army of invading robots

 

why anyone would use a sub-cartridge of these two is beyond me 

 

The AR-15 just dosent come off as friendly and inviting as the Ak

 

All my life the AR-15 has been the bad guy gun

 

The gun of western degenerate's forcing democracy down the throats of people worldwide

 

It just looks criminal to me 

[Scolopax]

http://spioenkop.blogspot.de/2015/07/from-russia-with-love-syrias-osv-96.html

 

OSV-96 in Syria.

[Sturgeon]

It is wrong, but despite this

Im still an AK guy

 

For starters the Ak is just really light and ergonomic

 

The wood finish feels nice and inviting in my hands and dispite the gun being small enough to drag around, had enough weight to it to be useful in a melee fight 

 

Its just easier to haul around then say a Mosin or an SKS

You can also put just about anything your heart desires on the weapon with eaise

 

For example, a Bayonet, or maybe even a grenade launcher, and last but not least

 

The magazine is fully removable

 

Boy is this a godsend, no longer do you have to fumble with those pesky stripper clips

 

The weapon is fully automatic and even has the option for single fire which can be done quite easily, and obviously by switching the lever on the side

 

The large solid buttstock not only lends itself well in a melee fight, but has a compartment which is filled with what can only be described as a random assortment of bottle openers

 

It also, being a solid block, fits well on my mongoloid shoulders 

 

Speaking of drinking, you never have to really clean the rifle, but it dosent hurt to throw it in a river to get the mud off

 

and dont get me started on the round

 

5.45 being perfect for self defense against criminals, afghan's and hippie's as it tumbles and yaws through a target

 

and 7.62 being perfect for eradication of cinder blocks or maybe a future army of invading robots

 

why anyone would use a sub-cartridge of these two is beyond me 

 

The AR-15 just dosent come off as friendly and inviting as the Ak

 

All my life the AR-15 has been the bad guy gun

 

The gun of western degenerate's forcing democracy down the throats of people worldwide

 

It just looks criminal to me 

 

Preaching to the choir on this one.

Though I didn't grow up with the AR being the bad guy gun. Actually, I suspect neither did you, as it seems it was much more common for mocked up StG-44s to be used in place of AR-15s.

[Tied]

Most of the post is sarcasm, but i am an Ak guy for obvious reasons

[Sturgeon]

One of the interesting things Ian mentioned when we hung out in June was that the Japanese small arms - the relevant ones, anyway, they used hardly any of their mediocre SMGs - really were pretty good, in his opinion. Here we can see him look at a Type 92 HMG, which today gets kind of a bad reputation for being primitive or ineffective, but you can see in the video that it doesn't seem like a bad weapon - if a bit primitive:

 

Interestingly, the gun had a scope rail on the top. I did not know that; that's certainly an advanced feature.

[Alex C.]

Obviously I know a lot less than Ian about Japanese small arms, but I do not understand why he holds them in such high regard. Sure, they had a few solid pieces, but he is the only certified gun nerd I have ever come across that goes against the grain and asserts that nearly all their designs are either great or simply misunderstood.

[Donward]

They're perfectly fine if you are a colonial power flexing your muscles against poorly trained and unmotivated troops whose leaders are engaged in a civil war or for mopping up third-string garrison troops in Hong Kong or the Dutch East Indies. The issue was always Japan's lack of logistics, lack of heavy and support weapons and their shoddy use of tactics and shockingly undisciplined officer corp which routinely disobeyed orders up and down the chain of command.

[Sturgeon]

Yeah, I thought it was a little bit weird, but I wasn't going to sit there and argue with him - especially when I know comparatively little about Japanese firearms.

One thing I thought was strange was that he talked up the Arisaka as if it was this great bolt action; IIRC he even said it was one of the best or the best of the war. Yeah, the Arisaka is a good rifle, and it has a legendarily strong action, as P.O. Ackley proved. But as a combat rifle? I dunno, it doesn't seem to stand out to me. Even the Type 99 is a long gun, with a 26" barrel - let alone the Type 38 with its hilarious 31.5" barrel, and the sights are absolutely nothing special (in fact, they're the typical shitty Mauser v-notch with tiny front sight). If you're used to Mauser sights, they're probably OK. If you're not, they are bad.

Beyond that, the gun is absolutely nothing to write home about. It's a Mauser, and it's not like the build quality is out of this world, either.

"Best bolt action of the war"? Beyond just "it's a Mauser", I've got a whole list of guns I'd put ahead of it. Again, not saying it's bad, just... I'm not sure I understand Ian's enthusiasm.

[Khand-e]

I don't know, I just get a really creepy vibe from Ian in general, I have no rational reason to explain it.

[Sturgeon]

A... Creepy vibe? It's the Van Dyke, isn't it?

Nah, he's a very personable guy, and he's awesome in front of a camera. So far as I can tell, all his videos are done totally off-the-cuff. I don't think I ever saw him to more than one take for anything.

[Brick Fight]

Obviously I know a lot less than Ian about Japanese small arms, but I do not understand why he holds them in such high regard. Sure, they had a few solid pieces, but he is the only certified gun nerd I have ever come across that goes against the grain and asserts that nearly all their designs are either great or simply misunderstood.

 

It could just stand out when the opinions of Japanese firearms are generally low to abysmal based on correct and incorrect information. When someone who knows quite a bit about firearms compliments them on what should be uncontroversial design choices, then it stands out, especially when they know what they're talking about. Strategically, things like clip-fed machine guns were bad choices and hurt combat effectiveness overall, but there's nothing to suggest that the firearms that the Japanese fielded  in large numbers were intrinsically mechanically terrible until the end of the war (not counting things like the Type 99 and Nambu, which were either rare or rarely used).

 

It's kind of like the whole debate on bolt-actions of WW2. Besides a few harping points, they were rifles that were going to be used from a months up to about 6 years, and niggling little debates about things like bolt wear don't really come in. They generally all have the same accuracy, mostly have the same size or weight, and could produce similar volumes of fire (And yes, I'm taking things like the Enfield into account). Governments genuinely had to try to produce a bad bolt-action service rifle by that point (like the messed-up Carcano carbines for example), and practical differences can only be noted in things like weight, comfort, and ease of using the bolt. An Arisaka isn't all that different from a Mauser, from a Mosin, from an Enfield etc. when it's cleaned, oiled, and being operated by a trained soldier.

 

I guess what I'm saying is a compliment goes a long way when most of the focus is on the poor aspects of something, and that the Japanese generally have a poor reputation, but did some things right that aren't focused on or didn't even really matter. A compliment's a compliment.

[Alex C.]

I don't know, I just get a really creepy vibe from Ian in general, I have no rational reason to explain it.

 

He is a good man. Nothing he said or did struck me as particularly odd or off-putting.

 

Yeah, I thought it was a little bit weird, but I wasn't going to sit there and argue with him - especially when I know comparatively little about Japanese firearms.

One thing I thought was strange was that he talked up the Arisaka as if it was this great bolt action; IIRC he even said it was one of the best or the best of the war. Yeah, the Arisaka is a good rifle, and it has a legendarily strong action, as P.O. Ackley proved. But as a combat rifle? I dunno, it doesn't seem to stand out to me. Even the Type 99 is a long gun, with a 26" barrel - let alone the Type 38 with its hilarious 31.5" barrel, and the sights are absolutely nothing special (in fact, they're the typical shitty Mauser v-notch with tiny front sight). If you're used to Mauser sights, they're probably OK. If you're not, they are bad.

Beyond that, the gun is absolutely nothing to write home about. It's a Mauser, and it's not like the build quality is out of this world, either.

"Best bolt action of the war"? Beyond just "it's a Mauser", I've got a whole list of guns I'd put ahead of it. Again, not saying it's bad, just... I'm not sure I understand Ian's enthusiasm.

 

I understand it perfectly: His father literally wrote the book on Japanese small arms and passed his enthusiasm on to his son. Easy to drink the kool aid when your parents are serving it I suppose.

I think we can all identify with that.

[Tied]

They're perfectly fine if you are a colonial power flexing your muscles against poorly trained and unmotivated troops whose leaders are engaged in a civil war or for mopping up third-string garrison troops in Hong Kong or the Dutch East Indies. The issue was always Japan's lack of logistics, lack of heavy and support weapons and their shoddy use of tactics and shockingly undisciplined officer corp which routinely disobeyed orders up and down the chain of command.

This

 

Same could be said for the Machine gun, what it lacked in ROF it made up for in pure ease to fire and reacruire targets, even if it was behind on the curve compared to a Browning or MG-42 mount, it could still get the job done

 

Then again that depends on which camp of the great fixed MG position debate your in (that an MG or more less an extension of the rifle, an ability to accurately and quickly, knocking targets as they pop up with supeiror speed and ROF than a rifle VS the MG is mainly used for suppression, an Machine gunner who takes time to ambly pick off targets from afar, only firing at that point is stragiically useless. An MG should be used only to create "Kill zones")

Personally i think both arguments are right and intertwined but i fall alot more on the first one, since i was brought up on the RPK  

 

Yeah, I thought it was a little bit weird, but I wasn't going to sit there and argue with him - especially when I know comparatively little about Japanese firearms.

One thing I thought was strange was that he talked up the Arisaka as if it was this great bolt action; IIRC he even said it was one of the best or the best of the war. Yeah, the Arisaka is a good rifle, and it has a legendarily strong action, as P.O. Ackley proved. But as a combat rifle? I dunno, it doesn't seem to stand out to me. Even the Type 99 is a long gun, with a 26" barrel - let alone the Type 38 with its hilarious 31.5" barrel, and the sights are absolutely nothing special (in fact, they're the typical shitty Mauser v-notch with tiny front sight). If you're used to Mauser sights, they're probably OK. If you're not, they are bad.

Beyond that, the gun is absolutely nothing to write home about. It's a Mauser, and it's not like the build quality is out of this world, either.

"Best bolt action of the war"? Beyond just "it's a Mauser", I've got a whole list of guns I'd put ahead of it. Again, not saying it's bad, just... I'm not sure I understand Ian's enthusiasm.

 

The type 38 was pretty mediocre in my opinion, like i pointed out in my Japanese rant, awful sights, not as realible as your average European bolt, and a weak round dispite the rifle being the size of a fucking surfboard

 

The type 99 is alright

 

It could just stand out when the opinions of Japanese firearms are generally low to abysmal based on correct and incorrect information. When someone who knows quite a bit about firearms compliments them on what should be uncontroversial design choices, then it stands out, especially when they know what they're talking about. Strategically, things like clip-fed machine guns were bad choices and hurt combat effectiveness overall, but there's nothing to suggest that the firearms that the Japanese fielded  in large numbers were intrinsically mechanically terrible until the end of the war (not counting things like the Type 99 and Nambu, which were either rare or rarely used).

 

It's kind of like the whole debate on bolt-actions of WW2. Besides a few harping points, they were rifles that were going to be used from a months up to about 6 years, and niggling little debates about things like bolt wear don't really come in. They generally all have the same accuracy, mostly have the same size or weight, and could produce similar volumes of fire (And yes, I'm taking things like the Enfield into account). Governments genuinely had to try to produce a bad bolt-action service rifle by that point (like the messed-up Carcano carbines for example), and practical differences can only be noted in things like weight, comfort, and ease of using the bolt. An Arisaka isn't all that different from a Mauser, from a Mosin, from an Enfield etc. when it's cleaned, oiled, and being operated by a trained soldier.

 

I guess what I'm saying is a compliment goes a long way when most of the focus is on the poor aspects of something, and that the Japanese generally have a poor reputation, but did some things right that aren't focused on or didn't even really matter. A compliment's a compliment.

 

This also

 

I guess it really comes down to a combination of shooting peferance, nationalism, and maybe some extreme examples of realibity

 

Personally my top ten bolt list for world war 2 would be:

 

1. Mosin

2. Enfleild

3. Kar/Ariska

 

Ya i know there is some type of Übermensch Swedish Rifle that on paper beats all three, but Sweden wasnt a fucking European land power let alone significantly involved in the war

 

So that precious super-bolt of yours is gonna spend its days shooting at plates and possbily being thrown into the hands of a volksturm conscript apon being sold to Germany who will promptly miss every shot he struggles to get off and will ethier be riddled with 7.62 tokerov or spend his golden years in Siberia

 

Meanwhile, the Mosin and Enflield win major victory after major victory 

 

The weapons are tried and true compared to your average Swedish piece which hasnt be used en masse enough to reveal its major flaws but is still worshiped by armchair generals 

 

I don't know, I just get a really creepy vibe from Ian in general, I have no rational reason to explain it.

Probably the gottee, and i dont peg you for a southerner