>>18724 And after writing all of that down I managed to get my thoughts into order and realize that there is a simpler way: >replace the claw with a horizontally oriented ˝clothespin˝ that will clip into the rim of the 7.62 real fucking NATO from the two sides >replace the part that holds the cartridge for loading with a new one shaped for the new cartridge >add some metal blocks and whatnot to the feedblock to work with the new ammo and belt >modify the feedarm to work with the new belt >replace the barrel and extractor, and hope that you won't have all kinds of misfeeds with the original bolt That might be actually cheap enough to be marketable. And if it works it would be much better than the Polish attempt at a PKM-flavoured NATO machine gun.

Since rimfire can be a degree more unreliable than centrefire, has anyone ever made a a rimfire gun simply with more than one firing pin? I know some have restrike ability but why not just try to mitigate the failure on the first trigger pull rather than on a subsequent one?

>>18910 >a rimfire gun simply with more than one firing pin? I know Kak makes a bolt / bcg with dual extractors, to pull out "magnum" brass, but I for one have never heard of dual-firing pins. Though for .22lr it seems like you could go the extra mile and spring-load the pins so they "unfold" into dual extractors. Then, hitting the ejector would shake the extractor hooks back into firing-pin configuration.

>>18910 The 1860 Henry lever rifle did exactly that, and I think a few others have done it too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofGnRSE7lpI&t=797 And then there's also this similar idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pVgM-tKA0&t=626

>>18910 The gevarm A1 had a solid bar for a firing pin.

>>18910 I guess lipfire shotguns would count

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=bwrpKFKcbrk https://yewtu.be/watch?v=S0YfOPrE3u0 https://yewtu.be/watch?v=nOw00FlRvDE So the Swedes figured out pretty early on how to retrofit both a pistol grip and a quick-change mechanism on a BAR, essentially bringing it up to FN D standard (minus the easy disassembly). Today you could go one step beyond that, and integrate a magazine well into the pistol grip module, and also make the quick-change system compatible with FN MAG barrels. This way you could take an old M1918A2 and make it fire 7.62 NATO (or any cartridge that fits into the magazine) with the magazine of your choice. Now, the M1918A2 would be still quite a bad weapon even by late Cold War standards, but I could see this upgrade being sensible for countries that received a lot of US ww2 surplus, and want to put them into service in second line units somehow.

>>32133 probably still better than the HCAR meme rifle.

Not sure if this should go in "reloading" (is it still in the catalog?) or here, but it feels retarded enough to go here. "American Reloading" has primed .222Rem brass. YT vids are still up talking about making 5.45 brass from .222Rem. How quasi-safe / reasonable is it to buy the brass, and ram it through a die? Maybe stuff some cotton over a single grain of accurate #2 to fireform it...but then you need to buy a primer for the first time you shoot it. Next step is a die. So, if I were to buy/rent a carbide chamber-cutter, could I just make a die with a length of 2" steel dowel and find a separate dowel to press the neck outward? Yes, I'm talking about resizing brass onesy-twosy with a hammer, but the Lee kits have you doing that all the time anyway. If you can still get those, I mean.

>>32133 Thats cool, but at that point might aswell use an FAL, it will work better.

>>33368 G3 is better, bit lighter, more accurate, faster rof in full auto, better trigger, not as durable and the muzzle velocity is lower tho

>>33374 Is it really though? the FAL was more widely used, besides, youre not meant to use either an FAL or a G3 in full auto unless youre in very specific situations.

>take a shipping container and put in some seats and handlebars >also add some simple mechanism that lets you open the doors from the inside >put these containers on a train, fill them up with troops >send said train into a border town of the country right next to you that you are about to attack >train rolls in, stops in the middle of the town, suddenly thousands of troop disembark and take over the city It's a dumb idea, and pretty much a one-time trick. But if you manage to catch the enemy off-guard then you can take over a town and use the enemy civilians as a living shield. And maybe you could take over several border towns in the first few hours of the war if you can coordinate a few such attacks.

>>34692 By the time you are at a point where you would have conceived such a plot is the point at which negotiations too have collapsed, and thus likely any uninspected trains passing through have also stopped running. That being said, the passenger trains that exist or equivalent hutt-on-rails anon is suggesting (sameish sample size) would not be significant troop numbers for taking more than the border towns at the start of a big dick invasion move that loses initiative. You might as well roll in, in full uniform on existing infrastructure/trains since general signs of mobilization would be obvious anyways.

>>34692 then you have a pocket deep in enemy territory that you are unable to reinforce or get supplies to, and which the rest of the defending country's troops can attack from all sides and crush within a day. you're also ignoring the logistics involved in transporting anything that's not a man, you won't be able to get anything bigger than a jeep out of the train car in time for it to be effective. also ignoring than any aircraft can just strafe/BRRRRR the train out of existence within 20 minutes of its arrival. this would only be useful in an assassination scenario where you just want to kill a head of state or someone else important very quickly, losses be damned, like Olympus Has Fallen.

>>34692 Inferior to just hidding missile launchers or a bomb in them and then shipping it as normal into enemy ports. Aka. Fresh fruits.

Do you think we could scale down ERA for use on humans?

>>35025 been done. spalling into uncovered areas / team members is issue 10 cover everything 20 mobility = mobility - 1 30 armor needed = armor needed + 1 40 goto 20

>>6910 >tall af Walking thing > can be fired at from almost anywhere can be also spotted from anywhere. Was it worth it?

>>35091 Mechs do not need to be too tall. Three meter tall walking tank that can enter buildings without much problem would be pure horror on modern battlefield. Same deal with power armor.

>>35104 A mech that small is literally power armor at that point mechs in general are a dumb idea it would literally serve the Same job as a IFV

Using a frequency doubler to bring a 450nm cutting laser down to 225nm and then using it to give people cancer from several miles away.

Shotgun rockets. Recoilless crew served self repeating grenade launcher/mortar. Hetzer with a turret that mounts aps/machineguns/atgms and troop transport capacity. Ultimate urban fighting vehicle.

>>35729 >Shotgun rockets. An anon already had this idea. >Recoilless crew served self repeating grenade launcher/mortar. I'm not sure what you mean by recoilless and self repeating, but there is already a 82mm automatic mortar. >Hetzer with a turret that mounts aps/machineguns/atgms and troop transport capacity. Ultimate urban fighting vehicle. The cannon would make it hard to manoeuvre in a city, and if you ditch that then you are left with an infantry fighting vehicle.

>>35729 >Recoilless crew served self repeating grenade launcher/mortar. <fire one round at high elevation <backblast is blocked by the ground <resulting smoke and dust cloud can be seen from space <crew is now on fire <remaining ammo is now on fire

.45 super casing and powder load but with a Liberty Civil Defense .45 acp bullet

>>35731 >The cannon would make it hard to manoeuvre in a city, and if you ditch that then you are left with an infantry fighting vehicle. Well, drop the troop capacity and mount it deep inside. And it does not need to have a long barrel since its destiny is fucking up entire buildings. >>35780 Doubles as flamethrower.

You know how the atgms shoot at top of tanks armor, where it is the thinnest? Lets just put ridiculous amount of armor on the top. Why the fuck not?

Unmanned sponsoon turrets on tanks.

>>36025 Also put them with their ammo outside of armor. Just glue a machinegun or whatever to the side.

>>36046 > Just glue a TFW, with an unlimited budged, the brightest minds and tons of scrap to mold, melt, and weld ... you finally decide on a tube of superglue to outperform your enemies. >>35104 >Mechs do not need to be too tall. Ah! the Boston Dynamics route then?

>>5117 >Autistic ideas Has anyone ever designed a gun that has separate magazines for the cartridges and bullets?

>>7098 >when your genteel dinner party goes all Agatha Christie on your ass Hylia help me, I actually sort of want.

>>36146 There were a couple repeating flintlock mechanisms that had separate magazines for powder and ball, if that counts for you. Forgotten Weapons has a few videos on the Lorenzoni system.

I want to hire a (REAL) self-defense instructor, and buy a simunition-round gun for him to train me, to disarm enemy guns. I will tell him to act erratically or professionally,for prepping for various situations. Im sure I will become rich some day and many niggers will be after my bounty >same thing with defense agaisnt knives,chains,broken bottles etc

Would it be possible to make an airburst grenade that would be a bit more directional? Instead of just spraying its fragments around in a sphere it would deliver them in a cone that faced downwards? I know a shrapnel shell is pretty similar to this but I mean something that projects them down? I suspect it would be very difficult to have the grenade 'know' when it is in the right orientation. Another related idea would be an improvement over those drones that deliver hand-grenades: attach a claymore with a drogue parachute attached to ensure the correct orientation. Eh?

>>36205 Could you not just frisbee out a disc?

>>36172 This is such a stupid waste of time and money that if you had told me it was a government program, I might've believed you. >>36205 >Would it be possible Yes. I think the OICW program might've planned something similar for that abomination they called a rifle back in the late '90s, but I'll have to check. I know they had a "smart" airburst grenade planned; that much I'm sure of. You could even have multiple of those imbroovd :DDd charges from your picture arranged radially around the long axis of the 'nade so that the OPERATOR could set them to go off selectively in any direction. But there's a problem with all this. Two, actually. For one thing, you're cutting the effective yield of the weapon to some fraction (say 1/4, for instance) of what would otherwise be achievable for a given warhead volume (a fairly limited one, at that); and second -- and more importantly -- there's really no advantage to doing so, because in any instance where it would really be necessary, you wouldn't be using a 203-like weapon in the first place because it would be danger close for friendlies or noncombatants or whatever. TL;DR Yes, but there's a reason no one's done it (that I know of). >attach a claymore with a drogue parachute attached to ensure the correct orientation See above, basically. Also, drogues don't prevent payload twisting in the wind, and at that point you might as well just use a top-attack directional charge like your image anyway. Sorry to rain on your parade, BTW.

>>36211 I've looked, and I can't seem to find anything about selectable directionality related to the OICW airburst after all. Mebbe brane no work so gud tuday.

>>36212 From what I recall, the smart munition was supposed to detect when it passed over an obstacle and detonate just after it was over that. I guess I don't have to point out how you could use a HEAT charge to destroy most obstacles and ruin the day of whoever was behind them, or just use some WP to create a smoke screen that accidentally kills them.

>>36205 You'd need a non-rotating projectile. Not really viable for a grenade, but it'd absolutely work in something like a tank shell or RPG.

>>36166 >Lorenzoni system Yeah I'm familiar with those. They're pretty neat. What I was thinking more was something that used actual blank cartridge separate from the projectile. Like for example utilizing powder actuated tool cartridge. I wouldn't expect a production gun like this would exist but I wouldn't be shocked if a one off were made by some gunsmith, or by an African poacher, or as a Khyber Pass special or something.

>>36243 >From what I recall, the smart munition was supposed to detect when it passed over an obstacle and detonate just after it was over that. I guess I don't have to point out how you could use a HEAT charge to destroy most obstacles and ruin the day of whoever was behind them Yeah you right. Although given that they were working with a whole whopping 20mm bore diameter, I can see why they went with the airburst idea. Fun fact, actually stupid fact, it seems the operator would've actually had to manually punch the range in after lazing the obstacle, because 1998(ish) tech. >or just use some WP to create a smoke screen that accidentally kills them. I see someone's been taking notes from the (((IDF))) playbook kek.

>>36434 On the finalized XM25 at least, the rangefinder would automatically set the fuze to the appropriate range. The operator only had to adjust how far ahead of or behind the lazed object the grenades would detonate.

>>36414 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brixia_Model_35 >A lever allowed for operating the breech and firing the weapon, while ammunition was fed in by the loader. Well trained teams could reach up to 18 rounds per minute, although operational rate of fire was less intense to avoid damage to the firing tube. The Brixia mortar differed from comparable World War II weapons in that it was trigger fired with the help of separate ignition cartridges to be fed into a special magazine, making the weapon more similar to modern cannon-mortars than conventional parabolic grenade launchers of the time. And if I recall correctly, the British 120mm tank guns uses the same style of system, so it's a single shot gun, but it has a magazine with ignition cartridges.

>>36243 >>36434 But after wracking my brain a bit more, I think that was actually a smart grenade for the 40mm launchers, because those don't have the electronics to set the fuse.

Fighter submarines Submarine jousting

>>36602 >Fighter submarines That's called a Midget Submarine. They can be employed by 'mothership' submarines pretty much like a carrier employs fighters except they can only carry 4 of them at most - even the largest of the submarines are small compared to a carrier. >Submarine jousting Was actually tried once, the result was an explosive-less kamikaze submarine that would kill itself when it rammed regardless of where the 'lance' was attached. Not really viable for ASW considering the other factors involved, and even if you were making a kamikaze submarine making a kaiten would be a lot simpler.

>>36612 Speaking of, is there any point in a modern submersible carrier, or is its niche better filled by existing strategic options nowadays?