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

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Red October1984

I've heard over and over that they use Hollow Points and smaller calibers so they don't have to worry about shooting through bodies in a hostage situation or in a densely populated area.

What makes you think that 5.56mm will not penetrate?Trust me it can big time at close range.JHPs have a reduced ability to penetrate body armor therefore from a military standpoint they are not popular.Even an FMJ 5.56mm against good body armor once it penetrates that it is slowed to around .22longrifle ballistics.

When even much slower velocity JHP pistol rounds are very capable of full penetration common sense will tell you that a higher weight and velocity round most certainly will penetrate.

Look at the Bin Laden raid some non combatants still got hit by rounds and that was the one of the most elite units in the US military.

I dont really care that much about what LE does to be honest their job is supposed to be to protect and serve not to be a combat force.99% of SWAT actions are warrant raids anyway and you kind find hundreds of cases where they shot innocent people.Here in Florida a SWAT sniper got a perfect head shot with a .308 only thing was it was one of the hostages whose head he split apart and it was not a miss he thought the woman was a legit target.No offense to the good cops out there I know it a a lousy job at times and such and there are plenty of cops giving everyone a bad name.

So here is another real favorite of mine the M1917 Enfield certainly one of the best looking rifles ever made it also happens to one of the most accurate.I have never owned one personally but my father has one and I have fired his many times maybe he let me have it some day.His is the US Army model in .30-06 there was also a version for the British Army in .303 and also some .276 caliber.


I have read a few places that the M1917 and the Brit version where not ideal for trench combat because they became very unbalanced with a bayonet attached.But man they really are good shooters if you have it on a good rest but that might not be so good when a German is about to whack you in your tea drinking face with a razor sharp shovel.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Here in Florida a SWAT sniper got a perfect head shot with a .308 only thing was it was one of the hostages whose head he split apart and it was not a miss he thought the woman was a legit target.

Perhaps it was this type of hostage situation?



Warning racial language!

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Perhaps it was this type of hostage situation?



Warning racial language!

No nothing like that.I think it was a man threatening to kill himself and some how SWAT showed up right away nearly this woman looked out the window and caught a bullet this was back in the mid 90's I think the woman may have even been in a different house than the upset fellow.Anyway the woman's family got several million in settlement money.It was an LE failing on multiple levels.

Unlike the sheriff whose move was pure genius.

[Red October1984]

Here's another utterly horrible (IMHO) design.

Krummlauf

Wikipedia Page

The adaptation to the STG 44 to allow the user to shoot around corners. I don't know if you would call it a failed design since there has been a successful weapon system that shoots around corners Here

[Stealhead]

@RedOctober

You speak of the SMLE Mk.5 and Mk.6 they where not a bad design for close range combat but they have a fierce recoil but the bigger problem with them was that they had a "wandering zero" so they never where constantly accurate.A friend owned one at one time a Mk.6 I think which was the Aussie version but it might have been a Mk.5.The wandering zero most likely comes from the fact that the MK.5 & 6 are carbines of the Mk.4 SMLE and perhaps the sights where not properly adapted also the barrel might be so short that some of the powder is not getting burned off.

During WWI the British Army and Commonwealth Armies used primarily the SMLE Mk.3 with a 17" bayonet some British units used the Enfeild Pattern 1914 rifle which is the Brit version of the M1917 that i mentioned earlier as far as I am aware only British units used them ANZAC and Indian troops pretty much exclusively used the SMLE Mk.3.

The Krummlaf is not so much a bad design as an impractical one if you ask me.

Here are two designs that you should look up the M1941 Johnson rifle and the M1941 Johnson machine gun.You may find them very interesting because they introduced some concepts that are now very common.Many of the guys that worked for Johnson later worked for a subsidiary of Fairchild Engine and Airplane Inc. that produced firearms and put those concepts intot he firearm they desgined.That is a clue there. See how much you can find out on your own.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

@RedOctober

You speak of the SMLE Mk.5 and Mk.6 they where not a bad design for close range combat but they have a fierce recoil but the bigger problem with them was that they had a "wandering zero" so they never where constantly accurate.A friend owned one at one time a Mk.6 I think which was the Aussie version but it might have been a Mk.5.The wandering zero most likely comes from the fact that the MK.5 & 6 are carbines of the Mk.4 SMLE and perhaps the sights where not properly adapted also the barrel might be so short that some of the powder is not getting burned off.

During WWI the British Army and Commonwealth Armies used primarily the SMLE Mk.3 with a 17" bayonet some British units used the Enfeild Pattern 1914 rifle which is the Brit version of the M1917 that i mentioned earlier as far as I am aware only British units used them ANZAC and Indian troops pretty much exclusively used the SMLE Mk.3.

I've always liked the SMLE Enfield rifles. I need to get one someday. I love the old bolt action military rifles.

The Krummlaf is not so much a bad design as an impractical one if you ask me.

Here are two designs that you should look up the M1941 Johnson rifle and the M1941 Johnson machine gun.You may find them very interesting because they introduced some concepts that are now very common.Many of the guys that worked for Johnson later worked for a subsidiary of Fairchild Engine and Airplane Inc. that produced firearms and put those concepts intot he firearm they desgined.That is a clue there. See how much you can find out on your own.

Homework?

School doesn't start up again til the 13th!

I'll look them up anyway

Reading the article on the rifle now....That is an interesting design. The recoiling barrel?

The M1941 rifle used the energy from recoil to operate the rifle. As the bullet and propellant gases moved down the barrel, they imparted a force on the bolt head that was locked to the barrel. The barrel, together with the bolt, moved a short distance rearward until the bullet left the barrel and pressure in the bore had dropped to safe levels. The barrel then stopped against a shoulder allowing the bolt carrier to continue rearward under the momentum imparted by the initial recoil stage. The rotating bolt, which had eight locking lugs, would then lock the bolt. Following, a cam arrangement then rotated and unlocked the bolt to continue the operating cycle.[1] One disadvantage of this design was its impact on the use of a bayonet, as the complex movements of the barrel would be subject to unacceptable stress when a bayonet thrust was used. The Johnson rifle utilized a unique 10-round rotary magazine and a two-piece stock, the weapon using the same 5 round stripper clips used by the M1903 Rifle.

Interesting idea. That's for sure...but how reliable?

Unfortunately, the Johnson's recoiling barrel mechanism resulted in excessive vertical shot dispersion that was never fully cured during its production life, and was prone to malfunction when a bayonet was attached to the reciprocating barrel. The Johnson also employed a number of small parts that were easily lost during field stripping. Partially because of lack of development, the M1941 was less rugged and reliable than the M1, though this was a matter of degree and was not a universal opinion among those that had used both weapons in combat.

Looks like another idea shot down before it could be perfected.


---

I'll look at the LMG tomorrow or whenever else I have time. Good reading so far.

[Stealhead]

Well I'll tell you the rest of the story.After WWII most of the engineers that worked for Johnson got on with a firm called Armalite which was founded in the early 1950s.

Aramlite was owned by Fairchild at one time a large defense contractor mainly in aircraft.They wanted to get into the small arms industry so they formed Armalite their major concept was using non traditional materials in their designs aluminum and synthetics mainly.

They produced a couple of .22 caliber "survival rifles" and then the AR-10 which was designed by Eugene Stoner.Stoner was influenced by some of the concepts that the Johnson machine gun had.Especially how the guns recoil was "straight line" which meant that the weapon did not tilt upwards very much which at the time was common to most rifles for example the M-14,FN FAL,AK-47.

Most of the concepts found on the AR-15 actually originated on the AR-10 but the AR-10 came along at a bad time as the US Army had just recently adapted the M-14.Emphasis on most though the AR-10 was a bit different and contrary to popular belief the SR-25 is not an AR-10 converted to have AR-15 features it is really an AR-15 beefed up to handle 7.62x51mm.

Still it is interesting to see how concepts and ideas from one firearm are used in another design.When it comes to firearms imitation really is the best form of flattery.

It does always work out perfectly the M-60 for example took design features from the MG-42 and the FG-42 but early models had a lot of annoying problems.or example the the gas tube,barrel and bipod where all attached which meant that the gun was in two parts when you needed to change the barrel not ideal it also had a lousy feed ramp that is why they welded a tin can below the feed ramp.They missed out on one of the best features of the MG-42 which was its rapid barrel change.The FN MAG 58(M240) did a much better job taking concepts from the MG-42 and improving them.That MAG was around from 1958 but not until 1997 did the US Army finally accept it as the primary GPMG at least our tankers had them from 1977.Back in the 1950's though in the US there was kind of a mentality that we where the best engineers and that foreign stuff was inferior one of the rifles that the M-14 competed against was the FN FAL.
The M-14 is a good rifle but when it got accepted in 1957 it was supposed to replace several different weapons when it was really only good as a rifle.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

What makes you think that 5.56mm will not penetrate?Trust me it can big time at close range.JHPs have a reduced ability to penetrate body armor therefore from a military standpoint they are not popular.Even an FMJ 5.56mm against good body armor once it penetrates that it is slowed to around .22longrifle ballistics.

I though we were talking about pistols.

So here is another real favorite of mine the M1917 Enfield certainly one of the best looking rifles ever made it also happens to one of the most accurate.I have never owned one personally but my father has one and I have fired his many times maybe he let me have it some day.His is the US Army model in .30-06 there was also a version for the British Army in .303 and also some .276 caliber.

Beautiful rifle. I always liked the British Enfield more though. Still, nice gun.

I have read a few places that the M1917 and the Brit version where not ideal for trench combat because they became very unbalanced with a bayonet attached.But man they really are good shooters if you have it on a good rest but that might not be so good when a German is about to whack you in your tea drinking face with a razor sharp shovel.

I know the Brits shortened their SMLE Enfields to use in the Jungle in WW2. I'm not sure about what they did for trench combat.