The Firearm thread: Engineering artistry of wood, polymer and steel.

[August]

Originally Posted by Red October1984

From what I understand, those are good rifles. I wonder if there's a good way to use the current HBAR barrel in a flat top reciever.

None of us are experts but as I understand it, the problem is not the receiver itself but rather the barrel, or more specifically at what point that the rifling grooves begin in the barrel (called a Leade). Technically I believe all I need to do is to have my barrels Leade bored out a few millimeters by a qualified gunsmith equipped with the specialty tool necessary to do so. This is apparently a rare combination and will at least involve having to ship it out of state which can bring it's own issues. I like to do important business with people I can meet face to face.

On the other hand if I buy a complete new 5.56mm upper which includes not only the receiver but also the barrel, gas tube, front sight post assembly, fore grip ect, I not only keep my AR all original but I can also swap back to the .223 upper when I have that type of ammo thereby saving wear and tear on the 5.56.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by August

On the other hand if I buy a complete new 5.56mm upper which includes not only the receiver but also the barrel, gas tube, front sight post assembly, fore grip ect, I not only keep my AR all original but I can also swap back to the .223 upper when I have that type of ammo thereby saving wear and tear on the 5.56.

Sounds like the best option from my viewpoint.

This way you can go back and forth from your Tactical and your Sporter. Best of both worlds.

AR's are too expensive for me otherwise I'd have one.

[Stealhead]

So here is one what do you consider the worst design firearm of the 20th(and late 19th) century?Also what is a more obscure concept that never really took off you think is interesting?

I'll go first worst design firearm that is easy the Chauchat.All in all in was just a horrible design that simply did not work well at all.Worst feature magazines that had large exposed sections i assume to allow the shooter to quickly see how many rounds where left but all it really did was allow dirt and mud to mess everything up.



Now on to an obscure concept that never really took off the Schmidt-Rubin(Swiss) pull bolt concept.The Swiss militray was the largest user of this concept they used a rifle that used this concept from 1911 right up through to the late 1940's.The US Navy used a rifle for a brief period that had a pull bolt but not as fluid as the Schmidt-Rubin.All in all the turn bolt is a much better design which is why the straight pull never took off not so much that it was bad it just was not any improvement over a turn bolt.

Swiss K31 this is not a semi auto it is a pull bolt



US Navy M1895 .236 which had a more clunky pull bolt it went upwards while the Schmidt-Rubin truly pull directly backwards the .236 was around a few years before the Schmidt.

[Red October1984]

I think that Pull Bolt is pretty cool!

Similar to the AR even...

I'm with you on that worst design. That doesn't look great at all.

As far as another worst design? I don't like lever action guns all that much. (I killed my first deer with one) They jam if there's any dirt, grime, muck or if you don't work the action fast enough...but not too fast. I see a lot of problems with it. I jammed the thing like 4 times in one day of deer hunting. The only Lever Action gun I've ever bothered to use was a .45 Colt Cowboy Repeater-type rifle.

Just not my preferred design. I like Bolt Action and Semi-auto. Burst is good for the Military but not Civvie guns I think. Full Auto is good if you know your way around, what to expect, and how to handle it.


Now concept that didn't take off...

I'd really have to think on that one. There are many things that never took off but I don't know if you would call them innovations. I know there's one that is cool that did take off is the way that certain guns are made to incorporate magazines from other weapons....like the Sten and NATO weapons. Everybody uses the 30 rd. STANAG magazines now.

The Sten was designed to be able to use magazines from the MP-40 so if they captured enemy weapons, the ammo wouldn't be useless to them and they wouldn't have to use the enemy's weapon. I'm not sure if that was the exact reasoning behind it...but that's how I see it.

I read something somewhere that you should never trust your life with a weapon that is not your own. You don't know how the enemy kept their weapons and the last time they were cleaned...not to mention you might not be familiar with that type of weapon.

---

I remember the time I did the US Army Laser Marksmanship training at Fort Knox. That was before I knew my way around the AR platform. It seemed so overwhelming at that point (but I was also like 10 or 11...that probably had something to do with it). Now, I could pick the thing up and feel perfectly comfortable with it and I now know what all the controls do and how it works.

The one I didn't figure out was the M249 and the M240. I was confused by those....but it was also kind of dark in that room. I don't know if you're familiar with that kind of training. It's a simulator they set up with lasers and pistons in the guns that register on a computer. They run you through qual-type firing and scenario stuff...and of course...we have to have our fun by including the extras...like the Turkey Shooting...and stuff like that.

They had a good setup. M16A2's (or maybe a 4. I don't remember. Probably a 2 though.), M249, M240, AT4, M4A1 with an M203 fitted (that was fun) and they all were fully functioning weapons. They could just take the special components out and lock and load with real ammo IIRC. It's been a few years since then.

Here's a picture of what it looks like: (The room is dark...the camera flash makes it look like they have lights on)



That's not the same setup I had...and those look like A4's.

That was one of the coolest things I've ever done. Later that day, I got to go do the Stryker Driver and M1 Tank Driver simulators on the base there.

Loved it...it's up there with me flying the Gyrocopter last September.

[Stealhead]

I would have to disagree with your opinion on level actions they where a revolutionary leap in technology and in certain battles made a huge difference.Case in point the Battle of Little Big Horn the US Army mainly had carbine Sharps rifles a single shot breech loader.The Sioux who also used a good number of firearms but they really liked Winchester and Henry lever actions which by the the US Army never adopted a lever action but it was not because the design was unsound they thought troops would expend ammo to quickly.

Perhaps the particular rifle you had was the problem I have not really heard of the issues you mention with most level actions unless of course something was wrong with them.

Lever actions where an important step towards fully self loading rifles.
The more impressive thing about the Sten gun is that is pretty much made up of scrap metal and it could be field stripped in seconds which allowed insurgents to easily hide them.Sten guns only cost about $10.00 a pop to produce which is pretty cheap.I have not heard before that the Sten could use MP-40 mags before.


"I read something somewhere that you should never trust your life with a weapon that is not your own. You don't know how the enemy kept their weapons and the last time they were cleaned...not to mention you might not be familiar with that type of weapon."

Not true by any means.You can learn to operate any firearm they really are not that complex because the person who may use it could be pretty stupid.You do not need to understand basic math or read and you could be taught in a few hours how to operate and maintain any small arm.Most soldiers at some point are trained on several weapons including enemy ones once they have done that they know enough to be able to operate and maintain any firearm they encounter.Any elite soldier is expected to be able to use any weapon be it an M-4 or some farmers old bolt action rifle.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

I would have to disagree with your opinion on level actions they where a revolutionary leap in technology and in certain battles made a huge difference.Case in point the Battle of Little Big Horn the US Army mainly had carbine Sharps rifles a single shot breech loader.The Sioux who also used a good number of firearms but they really liked Winchester and Henry lever actions which by the the US Army never adopted a lever action but it was not because the design was unsound they thought troops would expend ammo to quickly.

Well you are right...I can't argue with that because it's true. It was a technological breakthrough...but I just never liked them.

Perhaps the particular rifle you had was the problem I have not really heard of the issues you mention with most level actions unless of course something was wrong with them.

I think it was mostly just the calibers involved in my experience with lever action. Mostly I was using .44, .45 Colt, and 30-30 when I was looking at them. I ended up using the .45 for hunting because it was a good gun to start with in 2nd Grade. It had virtually no recoil...another problem was the range..

I think it comes down just to personal experience. I have never liked them too much...but I understand that some people get them to work great.... Me? I had double feeds every once in a while and the round would sometimes jam in between the magazine tube and the chamber. At that point, you have to take the spring out of the magazine tube and work it out of there. It just wasn't reliable compared to the bolt action guns I had used on the range. To this day, I prefer bolt action guns. I've also gotten very fond of the Semi Autos....ever since that day Dad took me out with the SKS, 10/22, etc.

Bolt Action rifles are just awesome though...Mosin Nagant, Springfield, Karabiner 98 and all the way up to the M40A3 and beyond.

Lever actions where an important step towards fully self loading rifles.

Can't argue with that statement at all.

The more impressive thing about the Sten gun is that is pretty much made up of scrap metal and it could be field stripped in seconds which allowed insurgents to easily hide them.Sten guns only cost about $10.00 a pop to produce which is pretty cheap.I have not heard before that the Sten could use MP-40 mags before.

IIRC, they did that so they could make hundreds of the guns to deploy an they wouldn't have to worry about ammo because they could use captured enemy ammo and the budget and building materials since it's just basically stamped out of a sheet of metal. I know the Sten was used in the early SOF of the war. It would make sense to put that in as an extra feature if they came across the enemy's ammo or when they run out.

I always thought it was a cool feature and an even cooler gun.

Not true by any means.You can learn to operate any firearm they really are not that complex because the person who may use it could be pretty stupid.You do not need to understand basic math or read and you could be taught in a few hours how to operate and maintain any small arm.Most soldiers at some point are trained on several weapons including enemy ones once they have done that they know enough to be able to operate and maintain any firearm they encounter.Any elite soldier is expected to be able to use any weapon be it an M-4 or some farmers old bolt action rifle.

It was just something I read. I wasn't sure if it was true. I know that SOF guys train with the enemy's weapons...and tbh Small Arms aren't hard to learn to operate...like you say.

Elite Soldiers are probably expected...but I wonder about Private Benjamin over here. What about these guys?

I know that you aren't supposed to ditch your weapon...ever. That was in many-a-book that I've read. Brandon Webb talks a lot about SEAL training in his excellent book. He was re-assigned to a different Platoon which was notorious for screwing up. One of the men actually dropped his MP5 out of the helo on a VBSS (Visit Board Search and Seizure) mission. He just picked it up off the deck of the ship and kept going. In a situation where you have nothing left...(I.E. You actually do lose it or it breaks or is damaged) and you have no other choice to use the enemy's weapons I can see it being okay...but another part of that thing I read was to stick to the weapon you trust. Stick to the one that you know has been cleaned and that you know you can use proficiently. Let's say the enemy is Germany. Yes, you may know your way around a G36....but when was it last cleaned? Will it jam or overheat? Do you trust it to keep you alive? What if it's something like the MG3 that operates a little differently than what you're used to? If you're an elite, you might know how it works...but if you're Private Benjamin...

I don't know. Some of this might be correct to a certain extent. I can't remember for the life of me where I saw that...it actually might have been Deadliest Warrior when the SOF guys were on there.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Red October1984

IIRC, they did that so they could make hundreds of the guns to deploy an they wouldn't have to worry about ammo because they could use captured enemy ammo and the budget and building materials since it's just basically stamped out of a sheet of metal. I know the Sten was used in the early SOF of the war. It would make sense to put that in as an extra feature if they came across the enemy's ammo or when they run out.

Actually the British elite forces much preferred the M1928 Thompson because it had a single stack magazine which was very reliable(the drum mags where hated).The Sten used a double stack and in those days double stacks tended to jam the MP-40 had a doubles stack as well and it jammed a lot.Also the .45ACP has much more punch than 9x19mm.I have several very reliable sources that tell me that the Sten was not designed to use MP-40 magazines including a person who has owned Stens in the past not trying to rub it in your face but that information is not correct about the swapping of magazines.

"Deadliest Warrior" is a rather unreliable source of information.You need to read books specifically about firearms and their design and production.For example those trade books that list the values of firearms those are written by experts.The factor that you are failing to consider is that most every combatant knows how to take care of their weapon because their life depends on it therefore the odds are high that will be in good working order maybe not spotlessly clean but it will pass a functionality check.You pick a Taliban weapon trust me it will work perfectly.