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

We've had that fight more than once on another board, and it's one of my favorite myths (and one of the most common ones when I give museum tours). It's just such an impressive gap in deduction on the part of the believer:

 

"Clip goes ping. Ping means reload. Reload means open to attack. Can use ping to trick."

 

It assumes so much on the part of the opposing soldier's lack of intelligence, or assumes that so many engagements were one-on-one close-range battles enough for these people to believe that it was a commonplace sight. I guess I should be thankful that some of these people break the mold of the "Aryan Superman Soldier" that they believe a German would genuinely be that dumb.

 

"oh boy that guy is reloading for 5 seconds"

*pops his head up, misses with his bolt, starts to recycle it and gets mowed down the American's squadmates*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, all dem boys wit dem Garand clips would always have an empty clip on them to trick all the Nazis/Tojos.

-Every youtube comment if I mention the M1 Garand

 

I hear our GIs had to pay a dollar to Pedersen each time they used the trick. That's how he became richer than the King of Denmark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm referring here to the issue of having a hot piece of brass retained in the mechanism and pinging around for a bit before getting shoved out. Seems like a bad idea, just on general principles. And somewhat baffling given the option to just, you know, eject the damn thing on the reverse stroke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole 'ejection upon bolt return' thing looks like something designed during a delirious episode.

 

It's a Browning concept. It's basically "ejection during the dwell between barrel return to battery and the release of bolt". It is notable that he's more famous for his gas operation and short recoil systems, although his long recoil systems were used in scads of sporting arms.

Chauchat was on the of the first designs to have a lot of the subcomponents farmed out to a horde of contractors, wasn't it?

In that respect, it was ahead of the time.

In a lot of AR-15s, especially over-gassed ones, ejection ends up happening during counter-recoil.  It's not the greatest thing, but it's workable.

WW1 as a whole saw an explosion in the concept of having companies that'd never seen a round of brass or a firearms component before, suddenly fabricate them.

With often terrible results.  The CSRG's  (and the Ross rifle via ammunition issues) suffered from this idea as there were loads of companies that were suddenly tasked with producing a far more consistent product than they were accustomed to. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it all back; I had a brain fart.

 

What you're seeing moving forward during ejection is not the bolt.  It's the barrel.

 

In a Browning long-recoil action, the bolt, bolt carrier and barrel are locked together and recoil after the shot is fired.  The bolt and bolt carrier remain locked to the rear for a while and the barrel returns forward.  So instead of the bolt moving rearward to extract the spent case out of the chamber, extraction occurs as the barrel is moving forward and the case, bolt and bolt carrier remain stationary.  As soon as the barrel returns to the forward position, it trips a switch that releases the bolt and bolt carrier, and these return forward as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a Browning concept. It's basically "ejection during the dwell between barrel return to battery and the release of bolt". It is notable that he's more famous for his gas operation and short recoil systems, although his long recoil systems were used in scads of sporting arms.

Didn't the Auto-5 work like that? I seem to remember them having an odd-looking ejection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't the Auto-5 work like that? I seem to remember them having an odd-looking ejection.

 

It did, as did the semi- related Model 8 and 81.

It's 1914 and things are getting gritty in Europe. Choose your piece (disregarding some of the anachronisms):

 

 

2hdqydt.jpg

 

2uiumxc.jpg

No MkII Ross?

 

Well, I guess I'll have to settle for the SMLE.

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...