The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: tombogan03884 on May 28, 2020, 09:40:05 PM
-
We all have background noise, some people put on the TV and forget it, business' and a lot of people put on tunes of some sort .
I put on video playlists.
C&Rsenal, Forgotten Weapons and a couple others.
Every now and then something catches my ear and triggers an idea.
Well, a while back I started writing them down.
I'm on the Gun forum for gun conversation after all. ;D
Imo Lahti put vent holes in the end cap of one of his SMG designs to keep compression of trapped air from slowing down his bolt travel.
Has any one tried to incorporate that into a design ?
The principle is exactly the same as the recoil systems on Artillery so it should work.
Where did 7.62 X 39 come from ?
Did the Soviets cut down the RIMMED, 7.62 X 54 ?
Or did they stretch the already rimless 7.62 X 25 ?
-
Where did 7.62 X 39 come from ?
Did the Soviets cut down the RIMMED, 7.62 X 54 ?
Or did they stretch the already rimless 7.62 X 25 ?
They stole the idea from the German MP-44,Sturmgewehr 7.92×33mm Kurz
-
They couldn't, 8 MM Kurz, and the M-43 cartridge were to near contemporary, and the 2 countries were looking for opposing objectives.
The AK was classed as an SMG, The Soviets wanted more range for their PPsH guns.
The Germans on the other hand had the exact same objectives as the post war US.
Trading unused range potential to replace MG's and still increase unit fire power.
They already had over powered full rifle failures in the G 43's and FG 42. But you just can not make a reliable select fire rifle that doesn't weigh a ton. If you do it's uncontrolable in full auto.
So when the Germans decided to cut down their cartridge they chopped it nearly in half. US Ord hesitated at a crumby 10MM and screwed up western designs for 50 years.
The German side is better documented because the guys who actually did the work passed from Heanel and Mauser, to CETME, until the restrictions were lifted in Germany when they went home and formed HK.
-
Here's some more. ;D
Caseless ammo doesn't work, and serves no actual purpose.
You don't need an ejection system.
Isn't that special, how are you going to clear a jam or unload when you're done shooting ?
Maybe a computerized ramrod ? ( that is sarcasm)
One of the biggest problems is cracking, chipping, and breakage of the exposed propellent that causes the afore mentioned jams, as well as turning the bottom of your magazine into a pipe bomb.
Supposedly Germany had a choice between following through on the overhyped HK G- 11, or rebuilding East Germany.
They picked the cheaper option of rebuilding the East.
The only way I see it working would be a multi metal rocketball design.
Previous caseless experiments mean they already have a usable self combusting primer design, so you stuff the propellent into the bullet composed to maintain ballistic efficiency, and allow the placement of an extractor groove at the base.
With enough thought put into the bullet design could almost allow for use in unmodified guns.
Bullets would be expensive, because weight has to be managed to allow enough length for the propellent charge while keeping the most efficient balance for stability.
My notebook might be right handy, but I can't put foot notes like this ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGKcvM2Hh4g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Owogu_un7s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZBHTOYHY6Y
The subject is primarily military rifles, but IIRC the pistol video had more detailed ammo design information.
-
I haven't heard of anyone letting the bolt of a submachine gun compress air in the receiver to slow the bolt travel, but if done right it could not only buffer the recoil, it could keep the bolt from slamming shut as hard, but still hard enough to fire the rounds. It would be a lot easier to keep your sights on target without having the full impact of the bolt as a solid hit at each end of the stroke.
I thought the idea for the 7.62 X 39 come from copying the German 7.92×33mm Kurz like Majer said. The 7.92×33mm Kurz was designed in 1938 and in service with the German military in 1943. The 7.62×39mm wasn't designed until 1943 and not in service until the SKS was issued in 1945. The Soviets had 5 years during which they could have learned about the German design before it was adopted. And they didn't design the 7.62×39mm until the year the 7.92×33mm Kurz was adopted.
Caseless ammo serves two actual purposes. It eliminates the most expensive part of the cartridge, and it eliminates the weight that goes with it. But instead of completely caseless, maybe a combustible case of some kind would better solve the problem of the compressed powder chipping off. Paper or plastic? Nitrocellulose or plastic explosive? That last part may sound silly, but don't forget about all the double-base and triple-base powders with nitroglycerin in them. If someone came up with the right mixture of materials that was sufficiently strong, moldable, and combustible (not explosive), they could make it into a case to fill with any type of powder. I'm thinking that it just needs to burn up and leave the barrel with the gas and powder particles, not replace the powder charge altogether.
-
Brass cases help remove heat from the action.
If it actually worked some one would have adopted the HK or Walther attempts.
No extraction, no obturation, excessively complicated.
No the Soviets never saw the 8X 33 till it got into action, then they seldom saw any of the ammo it was so scarce, 1000 rounds per gun per month.
The cartridges were parallel developments
Remember, they were not looking for the same things.
The Germans wanted more fire power for their rifleman while the Soviets wanted more range for their Sub machine guns.
-
I remember reading about a triangular shaped caseless round that used fletchettes being tested at Benning. 25 years ago? One problem as I recall is that the solid propellant was just as heavy and actually a little bigger than the brass it was going to replace.
I think sometimes we try to hard to take things to the next level when what we have works on many levels and doesn't really need to be replaced.
The Wankel engine was an example of a solution for something that wasn't really a problem.
Cooper would say DA/SA guns were a solution looking for a problem.
Anyone remember Bubble Memory which was suppose to solve all the problems of DRAM?
I think caseless ammo is the same thing. Sounds neat, but absolutely nothing wrong with brass cases.
-
The only real changes will be 3D printing as the materials improve, and sighting methods .
There will be "new" models and lots of hype because gun writers got to eat.
But it's all BS, we have reached the peak of what is possible with current technology.
-
I'm waiting to see when laser guns come out like SF movies have had for decades. If they ever make one it could have a prism and mirror set-up similar to a SLR camera. Aim your laser sight and when you fire the gun the laser follows the exact same path. Maybe the laser's predecessor, the maser, could be made into a microwave energy weapon? Portable rail guns would be more feasible if they didn't need a power supply the size of a house.
I thought this was interesting, a 7.92×33mm Kurz AR. Prvi Partizan makes ammo for it that a lot of places are selling. That's similar to an idea I had to chamber an AR-15 in .308×1.5-inch Barnes, but the 7.92×33mm Kurz is only 1.890" long overall. The .308×1.5-inch Barnes has a 2.050" OAL that's a little closer to the 2.260" length of the 5.56×45mm NATO. There should be plenty of room in the mags to seat ELD bullets out where they should be. The 7.92×33mm Kurz AR is a cool idea but it's a little bit meh. The .308×1.5-inch case has greater capacity and operates at much higher pressures and would be a lot more powerful. Plus it can be necked down to 6mm, 7mm, or whatever caliber you want. You need to handload it anyway so pick whatever caliber you want. You could also neck it up to 8mm, .358, .375, etc. if you wanted to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYNF5WMmEP0
-
I remember reading about a triangular shaped caseless round that used fletchettes being tested at Benning. 25 years ago? One problem as I recall is that the solid propellant was just as heavy and actually a little bigger than the brass it was going to replace.
I think sometimes we try to hard to take things to the next level when what we have works on many levels and doesn't really need to be replaced.
The Wankel engine was an example of a solution for something that wasn't really a problem.
Cooper would say DA/SA guns were a solution looking for a problem.
Anyone remember Bubble Memory which was suppose to solve all the problems of DRAM?
I think caseless ammo is the same thing. Sounds neat, but absolutely nothing wrong with brass cases.
I may have heard of that but can't say for sure. The first thing I pictured in my mind was something shaped like a Dardick tround and we know what a success that was... not. If they were in the shape of equilateral triangles they would single stack neatly in a left-right-left-right orientation in a mag, but to get that to feed properly would need a complicated mechanism that other guns don't have. Maybe 2 chambers, one for the left-pointing rounds and one for the right-pointing rounds. The chamber block could slide back and forth and be operated by a cam and lever, like in the feed tray of a machine gun but smaller. The chambers being aired out half of the time would take some of the heat out of it. Otherwise the rounds would have to be tipped over to line up with a single chamber somehow, and that sounds like a malfunction just waiting to happen. It could be done but that doesn't mean that it should be done.
Don't rotary engines put out a lot more power for their weight than piston engines? And have a fraction of the number of parts? I know there are some advantages but also disadvantages.
I have a bunch of shotgun shells that are one solid piece of plastic with a small metal piece with the primer pocket molded in. Even the rim of the case is plastic. I never had a case stick or a rim tear off or anything like that. They could make rifle ammo the same way. And if they're worried about the rim being too weak, use a belted case without an extractor groove. The extractor(s) could hook onto the belt. I don't think you could tear the belt off a plastic case if it was reasonably thick and long enough, not like the short belt on a brass case. Plastic is lighter than brass and that's one of the things caseless ammo was supposed to improve on.
-
Anyone remember Bubble Memory which was suppose to solve all the problems of DRAM?
Yes, I do. I had to replace a many of them "back in the day".
-
Big Frank, The FAL was designed originally in 8 Kurz.
Only the Camp Perry Peckerheads demanded a overpowered POS like .308.
-
Big Frank, The FAL was designed originally in 8 Kurz.
Only the Camp Perry Peckerheads demanded a overpowered POS like .308.
No kidding? I never knew that.
Here's something obscure, the Frommer Model 1910, predecessor to the Frommer Stop pistol. I downloaded the parts picture about 2 weeks ago and just found manuals for it at Forgotten Weapons. There are other sites with more pics and videos too.
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/frommer-1910-pistol/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpHuIiu9VjM&feature=emb_logo
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTsVD1G1xwM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guXG8Vaq-R8
-
I had a hard time locating one of the pics on my computer because it had the word "the" in front of it. ::) These are small versions of posters on Forgotten Weapons' merchandise site. I completely forgot where Elbonia was but the name sounded very familiar. The 4 books I bought and read cover to cover weren't enough to remind me.
The Pedersen device turned a bolt-action M1903 Springfield rifle with a port milled into the right side of the receiver into a semi-auto. It was fed from a 40-round box magazine and the small .30 caliber cartridge had about the same muzzle energy as a .380 ACP pistol.
Tom, I expect you'll be among the handful who knows why the Puckle gun fired both round and square bullets.
-
Don't know if you've seen this one,
I suspect you have. ;D
The mount is as interesting as the gun.
And I agree with Othias.
The Pederson probably would have been a fiasco.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPC7KiYDshw
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTsVD1G1xwM
That is one UGLY gun!
-
And then John Moses said," There can be only one..." ;D
-
And then John Moses said," There can be only one..." ;D
And the Lord has spoken. I wish we had a JMB around today!
-
And the Lord has spoken. I wish we had a JMB around today!
He wouldn't have anything to work with.
There really is no place for further real advancement .
Between the Glock, AR, and AK fire arms design has peaked out.
Factory optics standard are about as far as they can go.
The changes will come in materials, and manufacturing methods.
3 D printing of all parts will be the big step.
By the way, where does that stand ?
Has any one tried sanding, or machining the parts to establish a grain ?
-
Don't know if you've seen this one,
I suspect you have. ;D
The mount is as interesting as the gun.
And I agree with Othias.
The Pederson probably would have been a fiasco.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPC7KiYDshw
I haven't seen it yet but I'll add it to my list. I'd love to be able to visit some of the various ordnance museums. The U.S. Army Ordnance Museum at Aberdeen Proving Ground used to allow civilians to tour it, but it closed down and re-located to Fort Lee, Virginia. I don't know what their policy was there, or will be after COVID. I thought it was kind of funny when the MOAB came out and people started calling it the Mother of All Bombs. It weighs less than half of the T-12 bombs developed at the end of WWII. They had the casing from one standing on its nose outside the museum at APG and they took it with them during the move. 4,000 pound bombs were nicknamed blockbusters because one of them could wipe out a city block. This bomb was almost 11 times bigger so it got the nickname super-blockbuster. I don't know how many city blocks it would take out. The super blockbuster, for when you really need to f**k s**t up! Wikipedia calls it Cloudmaker but I don't recall ever hearing that before. It doesn't say how much of what type explosive it has, but it weighed 43,600 pounds, and they say the MOAB blast yield equals 11 tons of TNT. My best guess would be that they have similar explosive forces, but the T-12 was an earthquake bomb and would be 100 feet or so underground when it went off, not up in the air. The Massive Ordnance Penetrator bunker buster weighs 30,000 but Wikipedia says it only has 5,300 pounds of high explosive. The old blockbusters were 75% explosive but that's only 17.67% explosive.
They had a line of vehicles up and down the road on "tank row" at APG too, and I think I read before that all the tanks were moved to the armor center at Ft. Hood, Texas. I got to walk around an AH-56 Cheyenne attack helicopter outside the museum that was developed for, but not adopted by the army. It had a pusher prop on it to make it go faster which was something I never heard of before. "During vertical and hovering flight all power was applied to the main and anti-torque rotors, while during forward flight all but about 700shp was shafted to the pusher propeller. In forward flight lift was generated by the stub wings and windmilling main rotor. In 'clean' configuration the AH-56A was capable of sea-level speeds in excess of 275 miles per hour." 244 mph according to Wikipedia, with a cruise speed of 224 mph, and rate of climb of 3,000 ft/min. So in forward flight it would more or less fly the same way an autogyro does. I think that contributed to its 1,223 mile range. It might have revolutionized warfare. It was supposed to have a nose turret with a M129 40 mm grenade launcher with 300 rounds, that was designed to be interchangeable with another nose turret with a 7.62×51mm XM196 minigun, and also have a belly turret with a XM140 30 mm cannon. 21 years after the Cheyenne's first flight, the AH-64 Apache was adopted. The maximum speed is 182 mph with a cruise speed of 165 mph, and rate of climb of around 2,900 ft/min. It should never exceed 227 mph under any circumstance, like a steep dive. That's about equal to speed the Cheyenne would be able to cruise at all day until it ran out of fuel. Maybe we adopted the wrong helicopter. I guess that would be obscure gun-adjacent stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-12_Cloudmaker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AH-56_Cheyenne
-
He wouldn't have anything to work with.
There really is no place for further real advancement .
Between the Glock, AR, and AK fire arms design has peaked out.
Factory optics standard are about as far as they can go.
The changes will come in materials, and manufacturing methods.
3 D printing of all parts will be the big step.
By the way, where does that stand ?
Has any one tried sanding, or machining the parts to establish a grain ?
He'd have me. ;D He could help me work on the design of a gas operated pistol with a slide that goes forward to eject a round instead of backward, helping negate recoil and muzzle rise. My .50x25mm caliber would have a bit of recoil to manage. More likely it would only be .50x20mm. I haven't decided on a bullet weight and overall length yet. Not a low pressure round like the .50 GI anyway.
-
Nope.
Nothing new there.
Just rearranging proven principals. ;D