/k/ - Weapons, Combat, Outdoorsmanship


SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.1 (updated 2021-12-13)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 20000

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules

(used to delete files and postings)

what's a war board without a conflict?

Open file (2.43 MB 3840x2160 338 Lapua Magnum.jpg)
Autistic ideas Strelok 08/21/2020 (Fri) 16:45:14 No.5117
The subject says it all, so I shall start it with this one: .338 Lapua Magnum with a rebated rim, and an advanced primer ignition machine gun to go with it. If you don't know what that means, then kikepedia can help you out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_%28firearms%29#Advanced_primer_ignition_%28API%29_blowback But the tl;dr is that it's a simple blowback mechanism that ignites the gunpowder while the cartridge is still travelling forward, and that means the bolt can be a lot lighter. Now, this machine gun would be meant for vehicles first and foremost, because there is already a small push for .338 machine guns anyway, but that one design seems to be way too complex for vehicle use, especially if you put next to it a blowback machine gun. And in theory you could refit any weapon chambered for .338 LM to fire this new cartridge simply by modifying or replacing the bolt and otherwise leaving alone the weapon.
>>5117 API in a rifle caliber is a stupid idea. You get bulged and separated cases even in 7.62x39. Just scale up the PKM action and call it a day if you want a .338 Mag MG for dismount use, or just make a .338 Mag chaingun for vehicle use.
You remember the tank with rotating anti-infantry gun turrets mounted to the sides of its treads with a counter-gear to maintain constant stability from back in the day? I still want it regardless.
Open file (92.24 KB 806x545 himars.jpg)
Replacing all conventional artillery with (guided) rocket arty. Could you actually do it?
Open file (79.99 KB 554x750 artillerycatastrophe.jpg)
>>5258 Why would do that when you can launch guided missiles from artillery tubes? With modern robotics you could up the RoF to the point it's nearly on par with a MRLS, and you'd still retain all the benefits of having a cannon that can fire a variety of dumb shells with acceptable accuracy.
>>5258 Isn't the weakness of rockets and missiles their vulnerability to other missiles? They can be detected by AA systems and even tank APS. Meanwhile solid artillery/tank shells cannot be stopped mid-flight due to their ridiculously high velocity and very small size.
>>5304 I could have sworn that I read something about modern AA systems that could also be used against conventional artillery, certainly doesn't seem far fetched considering modern visual and radar systems.
>>5368 They can be, but it's not as simple as one may think. CRAM systems are going for one of two types of kill: 1) Hard Kill via boring into the projectile and detonating the bursting charge/warhead early. or 2) Causing significant enough damage to the projectile to either damage its airframe or induce ballistic shock and throw its trajectory off the target. With Cruise Missiles and Rockets, both 1 and 2 are relatively easy to cause if the CRAM actually hits them, since Cruise Missiles and Rockets tend to be extremely thin-skinned and have massive warheads. However, with conventional artillery shells this is a lot harder to achieve - given the thickness of the shell wall required to not sympathetically detonate the busting charge with the propellant. Long story short, for a CRAM to knock out an artillery shell they have to hit the incoming projectile with a high percentage of its potential energy with several modifiers I cannot for the life of me remember. It's doable with mortars (at any range) and possible with howitzers and small naval rifles (127mm-155mm) at the end of their effective ranges, but you can forget about it for 'high velocity' field guns (including most tank cannon) or other artillery 203mm and larger.
>rim fire revolver with swappable barrels and cylinders like ruger single 6 and dan wesson revolvers >various .22s .17s whatever rim fire >nagant revolver style action for that cylinder to barrel seal >threaded barrel comes standard >raised sights or no sights just pic rail >.22 version used with colibris or other subsonic to create the greatest one handed rat blaster Probably only would appeal to a farmer with a rat problem who also wants to have fun, but not enough to warrant an exterminator or letting loose a bunch of dogs. Maybe a trapper but they probably won't need to worry about the noise a standard .22 and ammo would cause if at all. My particular dream though >at BBQ with friends >wave dicks about who's grill is better >moves onto BBQ guns >fags whip out stag handled 1911s or SAA clones >I end the conversation by quick drawing my revolver and quietly blasting a squirrel >only those who were looking at me noticed I popped a squirrel without disturbing the others with loud noise >add it's meat to my grill >only my BBQ gun can actively participate in the BBQing process
>>5304 Seems like a problem you can solve with a barrage of cheap unguided missiles running alongside it. Though at that point why bother with the guided ones?
>externally powered Hotchkiss revolving machine gun Rather self-explanatory: take the Hotchkiss revolving cannon, redesign it to for a rifle cartridge, and then add a belt-feeding device and an electric motor to it. The actual mechanism has significantly fewer parts inside than the Gatling, and a it wouldn't need a delinker: https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=cQEs6i4fwLA A nice bonus is that the barrel is stationary in the moment of firing, therefore it should be relatively accurate. I think a version with just 3 barrels wouldn't be an overkill even for a tank or an IFV, and with an electric motor you could easily vary the rate-of-fire for your needs. >pseudo belt-fed sniper rifle Real super hyper elite snipers use their rifles as single-shot weapons, because keeping the ammunition in the magazine might change its temperature, thus affecting the ballistics. So make a a precision rifle with no magazine but a belt-feeding device specifically designed to be useful for single loading. You place a single cartridge where you'd place the first one of the belt, work the bolt, and now it's loaded. And you can place a second one in the belt-feeding device if you need an immediate follow-up shot for whatever reason. But if once in your lifetime you need to fire 5 or 10 or 20 or even more shots in quick succession with that rifle, then you can use a belt. Really, it's just an excuse to give snipers a single-shot rifle without actually giving them one.
>>5459 >take the Hotchkiss revolving cannon, redesign it to for a rifle cartridge >rifle cartridge Weak. Why not scale it up to Russian 57mm ammo like the S-60 AA gun uses?
>>5461 Why not make it fire the Schwerer Gustav's 80cm shells? Because I want something that would be actually practical, and a Hotchkiss is much better than this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_RMG_7.62
Open file (35.41 KB 739x248 mg_45.jpg)
>>5463 What in the name of Werner Gruner is that shit? Do the barrels turn with each shot or something? More importantly, WHY? They could have used a fixed-barrel roller-delayed system like the MG45, SIG MG-710. or the HK51E and added a forced-air cooling mechanism in a permanent sleeve around the barrel like the Pencheng has.
>>6779 Diffrent strelok, but same feeling even though firearms are not my area of knowledge. that's like designing a blish lock system for your army because you can't produce lubricant but you capture half the enemy lubricant stock during a conflict anyways. Is blowfoward a viable option or a meme nowadays? Question. Why not just have a bullpup with an extremely long stroke piston action for cooling? >pic semi related >ТКБ-059, a fucking three barrel, fully automagic, 90 round (tripled so only 30 rounds per barrel) bullpup firearm in 7.62x39
Open file (165.35 KB 1279x829 tkb059.jpg)
>>6783 >forget to add pic like a monkey.
Even worse: it functions like an MG3, but there is a computer that automatically rotates to the next barrel after a few hundred shots.
>>6797 >Even worse: it functions like an MG3, but there is a computer >computer dear god, a fucking caveman with a stone will rule us all if we ever lose power, fuck this shit
>>6797 Wouldn't the more sensible idea to just let the fucking gunner rotate it? You save on weight too!
Open file (6.66 MB 640x480 Hotchkiss 37mm.mp4)
>>5459 The Hotchkiss action is inherently unsuited for high rates of fire, because it combines intermittent movement with a large number of delicate little gears and cams (look at this video and find me a single moving part that would survive 1000rpm). The intermittent barrel rotation would probably also screw with accuracy at high ROFs, since every time the rotation starts or stops you're going to create vibrations. The Gatling action doesn't really have that problem because the barrels are rotating at a constant rate. >>6797 >>6798 >>6799 It sort of makes sense for an RWS. The gunner can't do it by hand because that would defeat the purpose of an RWS, and once you've added the machinery to remotely swap barrels it's not a big leap to go from "swap barrels when the gunner presses a button" to "swap barrels when the thermometer on the active barrel reads X degrees".
>>6818 >It sort of makes sense for an RWS a lot of things make sense under certain circumstance but weapons in that role depending on electricity is just nuts. If WWI era engineers could find a MECHANICAL solution to synchronize a plane's machine guns with its propeller i demand that modern engineers can do better.
>>6824 Kraut logic would build a generator on top next
>>6829 probably a fan or a solar panel
>>6824 Does the movement require electricity too? what's the point of shooting and swapping barrels if you can't aim the thing?
Open file (971.96 KB 431x491 touro.gif)
>>5117 Combat mecha. It's fine if its used in combined arms doctrine, for example one walker and a large infantry escort or a mecha command unit, couple tanks and appropriate escorts. Equip with an antenna and the ability to stand tippy toes for a very large signal range, or crouch down and drive on feet-wheels for flat terrain to keep up with the tanks while the legs are used for swamps/mountains. I just want battle mechs because they are cool.
Open file (96.85 KB 1024x524 1k17-image02.jpg)
Open file (48.62 KB 640x486 kompleks_A60.jpg)
Open file (19.62 KB 300x227 1К11_Стилет.jpg)
Open file (295.50 KB 1280x853 1280px-1K17_Szhatie.jpg)
Posted in the tank/afv thread but it probably also belongs here as well. Russians have a class of what they call "electro-optical distruptors" AKA laser beam weaponry. Except they use it for jamming planes/electro-optical equipment and missles If you know your GRAU index 1 for radio and electronics equipment K for Air defense 1 for specific unit numbering 7 for unit revision number 1K17 Szhatie (compression) , predecssor is 1K11 Literally a fucking laser tank designed to jam eletro-optical missles like AGM-114 or just fry/blind infantry. Also capable of shooting down helos as it actually straight up melts the god damn frame in a test alongside shutting down electronics. Ruskies made claims that the system is used in the Tunguskas and the APS systems. >literally a buratino but with 12 large ass lasers instead of rockets >according to the ruskies it fucking melted a helo in testing > Regarding the lasers themselves, there are two versions : one each, specifically for "Compression" in the laboratory, a dozen 30-kilogram ruby ​​crystals were grown, on the other - not a ruby ​​laser, but the so-called Nd: YAG (solid-state laser based on yttrium aluminum garnet with additives of neodymium). Drawbacks were the slow fire rate, and energy consumption/ overheat issues. Fact they needed an additional fucking power plant in the thing lol. Regarding the 1K11 Stiletto : > A 1K11 laser and related equipment were installed on the chassis of the SU-100P self-propelled gun. The laser could work in a weak mode for targeting guided weapons and in a strong one - in this case, at a distance of about 5-7 kilometers (different data are given in the sources), the photocells of the optical systems and the transmitting tubes of television cameras were noticeably damaged . Under the appropriate confluence of circumstances, an enemy tanker, looking through an optical device, could receive a serious retinal burn. >All scraped >literally found in junkyards and a god damn ditch by explorers Sanguine vehicle (modified shilka), no GRAU index >On tests that began in 1983, the Sanguine showed that it can not only determine the optical system of an air target, but also successfully hit it . At the same time, at ranges over 10 km, the target optics were "blinded" for several minutes, and at distances of 8-10 km, the destruction of the sensitive elements of the optics had already begun. There is no exact data on the number of released "Sanguins" (classified), but at least one copy was made. Modified Il-76MD with large ass laser used for fucking over missles in picture too. GRAU Index 1A/ 1A2, possible third aircraft >The main laser was placed in the cargo hold, between the wing and the keel. To prevent it from interfering with aerodynamics in flight, the corresponding section of the aircraft's "back" was replaced with opening flaps: they opened, the laser moved out, and the ambassador of the work was retracted. The laser of the A-60 complex had a gas-dynamic scheme and carbon dioxide as an active medium. The radiation power exceeded 2 MW . The details of the tests over 30 years have not been published. Soviet Skif-DM project >space based satellite laser prototype >lost because couldn't achieve stable orbit >no actual (known) photos exist
Open file (57.05 KB 600x361 fork_pistol.JPG)
This might be some top tier autism from centuries ago.
>>6818 I gave quite a lot of thought to it, and this is what I came up with. Apologies for the low quality, but in my current situation making this was literally faster than firing up a program to make some better sketches, and it's not like the idea warrants anything more. The strength of the Hotchkiss system is in the loading and locking, so that's what I want to keep. >Gear #1 is directly connected to the barrel cluster >Gear #2 is connected (either directly or via a gear train) to Gear #1 and the pseudo bolt (via the connecting rod) >said pseudo bolt loads one barrel, fires the next one and ejects a third one in a single motion (let's assume it has 5 barrels at the very least) >loading works like on the Hotchkiss, the curved locking plate guides the cartridge >said rammer also actuates the belt-feeding mechanism >firing pin is stupid simple (it should be easily replaceable, of course) >extractor connects with the rim of the empty case for a moment, then it starts pulling out the case as the barrels rotate and the pseudo bolt is travelling backward (hence the curved shape) >then a simple pathway guides the spent casing to the ejection port where a fixed ejector is waiting for it I can see two potential problems through: >extraction The extractor might need two sections to work, one of them can move so that it can snap onto the rim of the cartridge, then it's followed by a fixed part that does the pulling out. I'm just not sure about tolerances and wear-and-tear, so maybe this wouldn't be that simple in practice. Still, if it fails then there is still the option to give every barrel its own ejector instead (loosely inspired by what you can find on single shot and break action rifles). >gear rations I just go ahead and admit that I don't know much about gears, so I fear that gear #1 would have to be gigantic to keep the ration required for it to rotate only 1/5 of a turn while gear #2 completes a full rotation. If all of this works out somehow, then I think the best way to give it a spin would be to integrate gear #2 with a programmable stepper motor, so that you can freely vary the RoF. Also, at high RoF it would just spin the system like in the Gatling, but at low RoF (or single shot) it could be programmed to stop after every single shot for a fraction of a moment, so that the projectile has time to leave the barrel. The only additional trick is that the belt-feeding mechanism would need a disconnector, so when firing is stopped gear #2 rotates one more to clear the loaded barrel, but without chambering a fresh cartridge in its place. This system then could be also used for single shot. >>6798 >>6799 >>6824 We went over this before: >The best tank is a steel shed with an infantry platoon inside that has firing ports looking at every direction, because it has no machinery that could break and there are lots of eyes inside. Using a gun that needs electricity in a remote-controlled mounting that wouldn't work without electricity in the first place and was never designed to be operated manually is not a problem.. The real problem here is that the krauts did the very kraut thing of overcomplicating the solution: instead of adding some fins for forced-air cooling or going back to the good ol' water jacket they created this monstrosity that is so complicated that replacing it with a Maxim would be a step towards simplicity, and you wouldn't lose any additional capabilities. Yet it's fine by me, because I can point at it and use it as an excuse to argue for my deranged fantasy of arming every vehicle with rotary machine guns that have variable RoF.
Open file (74.79 KB 807x608 Russian Fireworks.jpg)
I've always had a stupid idea in my mind since I was young of a pistol that holds a single .50 round. I feel like someone would've at least made a prototype of it by now.
>>6783 >Is blowfoward a viable option or a meme nowadays? It's simply useless for small arms, and there is no reason to use it on bigger weapons, because there is a plethora of better systems. >Why not just have a bullpup with an extremely long stroke piston action for cooling? How would that help with cooling, other than reducing the RoF? But if you want that then you have many other options besides a long piston. I honestly believe that long recoil is the answer to most questions regarding small arms, because it inherently forces a low RoF and the whole action becomes one big recoil absorber.
>>7136 I am fairly certain at least one huemonkey has nigger rigged something like that.
Open file (21.39 KB 500x332 DSUvOae.jpg)
>>7006 Badass technikal story anon thanks for sharing >tfw future troops will have to wear goggles for wavelength protection or the retina snipers burn your corneas out on the note of lasers there were 3 special ops helicopter goons who got their corneas and nerves damaged in an alleged laser attack by a russian spy ice breaker back in 2010 something when they were examining the icebreaker and its antennas, russians didnt like that all that well so they decided to laze em, somehow the pilot was the only one that didnt get perment effects, those 3 guys suffer excruciating permanent pains and vision problems because of what happened, US ZOG gov rejwcted them completely and even called them crazy which Kinda supports the idea that they are taking laser weapons seriously, especially as a clandestine weapon sice they dint want to get the word out, and were even scummy enough not to silence their golems with at least some money. \ Laser weapons is the future?
>>7156 Short range lasers for electro-optical jamming/ APS systems might be feasible, soviets concluded that long range/ laser weaponry capable of downing an aircraft is not. DOD is moving in the wrong direction because muh shrekels. I have an autistic idea for a firearm. Why not get a side mounted magazine so you have a lower profile? Would it be possible to make it feed from either side and eject out the other port? obviously this is not a muh-average-infantry man weapon, more like some sort of semi-auto marksmanship rifle
>>7260 >DOD is moving in the wrong direction because muh shrekels. On the contrary, the US DoD actually managed to make Long Range Lasers work. MIRACL, for example, successfully hit the satellite MSTI-3 at a range of 268mi/432km and blew a hole in the 'wing' fixture, however it suffered damage from improper mounting (the same flaw that caused it to miss the center of target) and was disabled from the firing. It was repaired within the hour.
>>7264 Okay. I take that back then. So they finally solved dispersion and power source issues?
>>7269 Purportedly. While I admit that Laser Systems are not my area at all, I'm more familiar with the Solid State Laser systems than I am the older Chemical Lasers. They claim to have a special lens of classified composition that cuts energy dispersion to a small portion of natural, but I don't know the specifics. All I know is various range envelopes and system footprints for installing the systems onto ships, with ~250mi being considered the outer range of effect for the turret-sized arrays.
>>7276 Still has powerplant issues methinks then. Like dispersion is a hard problem like bullet drift. I suspect that also weather conditions can and still fuck over lazor effectiveness. Imagine invading china and the chinks just callup a pollution storm and it shuts down all your fancy lasers lol.
>>7288 >powerplant Powerplant is as simple as hauling more gensets around. For a mobile system, long range lasers are basically completely impractical, but it's fully possible for bases. Intermediate Ranged HELs could be powered by as few as 3 trailer gensets, which is simple enough to accommodate considering they'd be replacing the same number of 'ammo haulers' for conventional systems such as Patriot. And of course, for the CIWS/CRAM sized units, the genset is part of the firing vehicle, so they only need fuel trucks and actually can be part of mobile units. All that being said, on fixed bases or ships, powerplant becomes a non-issue since they generally have tens of megawatts of power available. >dispersion From my understanding, the US is currently treating the laser energy dispersion as the spread from a shotgun - more of a benefit than anything, even if it reduces effective range. If you can apply the raw power required to saturate the entire area, then it makes actually hitting the thing you're aiming at much easier and completely invalidates most of the commonly proposed countermeasures to lasers (such as speed-induced plasma barriers and rotation). That, of course, requires massive gensets and limits your effective range (or increases required dwell time), but the logic has its merits as a medium range defensive weapon at least. Unlike 'do fucking everything' multirole jet. >weather conditions Weather conditions are actually a massively overblown 'problem' that doesn't really affect HELs, since things such as dust, water vapor/spray, and such have such a low energy saturation limit that they are basically disintegrated/evaporated by the laser within milliseconds of exposure. The important thing is the frequency and wavelength of your radiation, same as for underwater use. Speaking of which, they (NorGru and LockMart both) apparently actually have HEL prototypes which work underwater - certainly, their maximum effective ranges are terribly short if you're comparing to open-air systems, but the concept of a 1.3km anti-torpedo system (that also functions as a silent sonar replacement for littoral navigational purposes and mine-detection) is attractive.
>>7290 >powerplant solutiosn Considering the ruskies did shove a powerplant into a mista-s chassis, I think it's not impossible. Would be interesting to see a US version of an eletro-optical jammer thats on a humvee dedicated to jamming missles like the 9K121 Vikhr or ERYX. There's rumors the russians adapted a smaller system on the tunguska and then made it into the APS systems on the T-90 and T-14. I wonder about issues with the lasers in divergence zones. Given water diffraction (is that the correct word) is larger than air, a SSP with a layer and a extremely different thermocline might be an issue if your in a surface duct.
>>7260 >I have an autistic idea for a firearm. Obviously: you're here. >Why not get a side mounted magazine so you have a lower profile? Like say, the Sterling SMG, or the FG-42? >Would it be possible to make it feed from either side and eject out the other port? Almost certainly, there's at least two ways I can think of to do that.
Open file (78.31 KB 600x529 6.5.jpg)
Open file (302.84 KB 2000x657 MK-107.jpg)
Open file (5.54 KB 170x180 img_042.jpg)
I've said this before. A balanced action (AK-107 clone) rifle chambered in 6.5 creedmoor. >Why? I thought of 3 reasons. First, the whole point of a rifle is to be easy to use for the average retard grunt. The main problem with retard grunts is their trash recoil control and therefore total inability to hit targets. The slav wizard action manages to fix this issue by turning their rifle into airsoft guns recoil-wise. Secondly, most of us can agree that 5,56 is a pussy round that is not suited for anything other than room cleaning. We also know that the 7,62 NATO that so many rifles are chambered in is great, but is too difficult for the average retard to control in anything other than semi. So, why not chamber a round like the 6.5CM which has significantly less recoil than 7,62 and better ballistic performance? It's better than 6.5 grendel too for obvious reasons. And finally, because it would be fucking RAD
How's this for an "ideal" universal military smallarms cartridge - base it on the 7.62x51mm NATO, but shorten it to a 40mm case length and neck it down to 6.5mm, using a bullet of about 130gr. You get something between the 6.5 Grendel and the 6.5x47 Lapua. Can run it through an M240 and you'd only need to swap out the barrel and maybe the feed tray. It'd be easy to manufacture an AR type weapon for it , something halfway between an AR-10 and and AR-15 (call it the AR-12.5?) Thoughts?
>>7370 > base it on the 7.62x51mm NATO, but shorten it to a 40mm case length and neck it down to 6.5mm, using a bullet of about 130gr. Instead of going through all this autism just use 6.5 CM
>>7369 As far as I know, balanced action only really works in full auto, and you shouldn't want your grunts to use it nilly-willy. Besides, if you want to lessen felt recoil, then you should use a spring-loaded stock, like what the FG-42 had. >>7370 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5mm_Creedmoor >Parent case .30 TC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30_TC >The .30 Thompson Center, also known by its abbreviated name, .30 TC is a cartridge developed for Thompson Center Arms by Hornady[1] Intended to deliver .30-06 Springfield performance in a .308 Winchester length round. >As it has been understood that gunpowder burns more efficiently in shorter wide-diameter casings,[5] modern ammunition has changed over time to become shorter and wider than previous cartridges. Besides, the difference is small enough that chambering it in a belt-fed 7.62mm NATO machine gun shouldn't be much of a problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_48_machine_gun#Variants >At the National Defense Industry Association’s annual Special Operations Forces Industry Conference (SOFIC), which began on May 20 2019, FN has unveiled a prototype of its new Mk 48 Mod 2 machine gun chambered for 6.5mm Creedmoor. It was developed in response to a USSOCOM requirement. American special operations forces are interested in acquiring a lightweight belt-fed "assault" machine gun, which would offer better range than existing weapons.
>>7372 >>7375 The idea behind >>7370 was to have a case with a preexisting base diameter, but of roughly 5.56 length, without losing too much effective range compared to either 5.56 or 7.62. 6.5Cm extends the effective range past 7.62, but fails in the other parameters I just mentioned. My round is almost a shortened 6.5Cm, in dimensions. With good modern propellants, it should provide ~85% of the ballistics, with less cartridge weight, bore erosion, and recoil.
>>7396 But why? It's still going to be more comparable to 7.62 NATO in weight and size than to 5.56, and although I'm not a fan of the latter, even I have to admit the advantages of its small size and low mass.
>>7396 The cartridge you are looking for already exists; It's known as 6.5 Benchrest (6.5 BR). It's in the domain of wildcats for metallic silhouette shooters. It's based off of the .308 x 1.5" Barnes (7.62 x 39mm nato style) cartridge which is what all benchrest cartridges are based off of. Contrasting with the ppc cartridges that are based off of the .220 Russian. Both ppc and BR cartridges are well renowned for their inherent accuracy, and powder efficiency. It can push a 120 grain bullet to ~2500 fps out of a 14" barrel going by the hottest loading. Here's some load data with velocities: https://loaddata.com/Cartridge/65-BR-Remington-65mm-BR-Remington-Handgun-Using-Nosler-Bullets/3071 Here's load data for a rifle, most likely with a 26" barrel. It can push a 127 grain bullet to ~2700 fps. A 20" barrel could probably push a 120 grain bullet to ~2650 fps. https://loaddata.com/Cartridge/65-BR-Remington-65mm-BR-Remington/555
I have an idea for some alt-history: >during ww1 the US not just strongly considers adopting .303 British, but actually goes ahead and does it >after ww1 the French come to the conclusion that developing their own special cartridge is a waste of time when they have all these guns chambered for 8mm Mauser >in the 1930s, Japan (instead of developing both rimless and semi-rimmed .303 British) decides to adapt 8mm Mauser, because they have to manufacture it for the Chinese front anyway >during ww2 Britain adopts that Czech 8mm machine gun for the tanks, but then it leads for a push to adopt 8mm Mauser on a wider scale What would happen after the war in a world filled with 8mm Mauser, .303 British and 7.62x54 Russian?
>>7398 Range, and more importantly, power at range, while still being a controllable round for the usual sort of absolute moron who always ends wheedling their way into in the military in peacetime. >>7413 Well, I'll be.... is there anything other than bolt-actions chambered for it?
>>7520 >Well, I'll be.... is there anything other than bolt-actions chambered for it? No. This is a highly custom, for the lack of a better word, cartridge. Reamers, head spacing, the distance the bullet 'jumps' to the rifling, are all slightly different for each rifle. Everything done for the sake of performance. The people that use this cartridge simply have no reason to want a semi-auto in the cartridge. I know the PPC cartridges can be put into a standard AR-15 using a grendel bolt, as 6.5 grendel is just a slightly modified 6.5 ppc. But a semi-auto rifle in the benchrest cartridges will be a custom affair. If you wanted to build one your best bet will be to modify an AR-10. I really wish manufacturers put out more rifles in the PPC and BR cartridge lines, they are excellent performers.
>>7550 6.5 BR uses .308 as its parent. You'd need to modify some magazines, get a barrel and a standard .308 bolt face. Infact I believe people have already done it.
>>7442 >303 british spam cans for .08 cents/rd cool
Open file (99.49 KB 700x508 cavalry.jpg)
Is there any situation where an uniformed service would be better off using horses instead of motorized transport?
>>8178 Possibly steep, inhospitable terrain, like a mountain. In the Peruvian Andes, some of the locals use mountain horses to get around quickly on the slopes, where decent roads aren't available.
Open file (386.96 KB 850x601 1450527249447-1.jpg)
>>8178 When logistics can't support your motorized transportation, then a beasts of burden in theory would be a supperior alternative for hauling equipment. It could also potentially reduce the footprint of any modern military to the local opfor, so instead of tire tracks, oil/engine fluids, noise and light pollution that vehicles tend to produce you just have hoove prints and the occational pile of shit. Just to be an idea guy, one might confuse trackers by using small lightweight mobile platoons that have some riders and then one or two on foot to leave a footprint that more closely resembles a sheperd herding cattle than mobile infantry. But thats totally out of my realm of knowledge. Pic, halfway related.
>>8178 From what I understand, the marines heavily utilized Donkeys in the Afghanistan wars precisely because they were more efficient than mobile armor in many of the more mountainous regions.
Some of the alp troops are using donkeys because they just work, sort of. I think it was german mountain troops.
Open file (68.46 KB 700x483 tragetier_bw7ser.jpg)
>>8211 >>8249 >>8178 Germs never abandoned their mules. It's fun and meme-worthy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_piston I wonder if this can ignite black powder. You could then design a gun where the piston is moved by a spring, and so pulling the trigger releases the piston, igniting the gunpowder.
>>8548 Or even better: can a fire piston ignite flash paper, and can flash paper ignite smokeless powder? If yes then it would be possible to make a paper cartridge that needs no primer and works with smokeless powder.
>>8551 That sounds it would make a decent fire cracker and not be so decent for small arms ammunition.
Open file (307.93 KB 1104x1648 Daisy vl article.jpg)
>>8548 The daisy V/L 22 rifle worked using this principle so it can be done. I would imagine it would work fine with black powder. It would be interesting to see if it changes how the powder burns. You could sustain it for longer than a conventional primer and possibly improve the burn characteristics and thus efficiency. I know the U.S is testing plasma ignited cannons for this exact purpose.
>>8564 My big idea is a muzzleloader for hunting first and foremost, because it would make the whole system a lot more convenient. But if we wanted to go beyond that then a bolt-action rifle with a Welin breech and a fire piston in place of the firing pin could work. You might even use a normal case with some flammable plug instead of a primer. Although the target market in this case would be gunhipsters who'd already pay for laser-ignited cartridges and whatnot. Or to go even further beyond that, I can imagine an artillery gun that has a ring of fire pistons around the breech (with said fire pistons being parallel with the barrel), so that you can get rid of primers. >I know the U.S is testing plasma ignited cannons for this exact purpose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrothermal-chemical_technology I wonder if we will ever get to see the results.
Rocket assisted quick deploy crater trench system! Hear me out! It's a great idea, I promise! Essentially: you know wire guided missiles and torpedos, and how mine clearing line charges are essentially just rockets that drag long ropes with explosives attached behind them in order to clear a long stretch of ground from IEDs or mines, or obstacles? Well, imagine the following: three rockets. One drags barbed wire, one drags AT mines, the third drags explosives. But not just any explosives. It drags explosives expecially designed to create craters of varying sizes big enough for one or two infantrymen to take cover in. This allows your rear troops to quickly set up lots of positions that your retreating front line troops can use to buy more time. Now your rear line troops can just spam these rockets everywhere they see fit and create lots of positions in the same time it would have otherwise taken them to build only one line. The retreating commander can then decide which one to take and which one would best suit his defensive needs. Best of all: the only thing that is immediately armed is the barbed wire. He can chose to keep the cratering charges and the mines disarmed and not detonate them at all if he fears that this would give away his position, then detonate them at command if the enemy does decide to take the position instead. It's a very obvious system, clearly not something for sneeky breeky operatan, but it should work for large scale defensive operations.
Y'know what? A caseless ammo Gatling gun. No, Not the modern ones With belts and delinkers and Motors and shit. A good ol' crank-operated gun, with a Gravity Feed Magazine or Hopper. Why? Well, caseless ammo has a Habit of breaking and deforming from Impact and friction, and also ist notorious for cook-offs. The Gatling System would eliminate 3 potentially critical points from the equation, those being 1.the magazine, with its follower and feed lips exerting Force on the ammunition, potentially causing it to break. 2.the stripping, directly related to the Magazine. In a Gatling gun, the cartridges are dropped into the feeding mechanism, without the need to strip them from a Magazine, potentially deforming the ammunition. 3.the overheating issue, which is negligible in this design, because the multiple Barrels and the constant rotation contribute to the dissipation of Heat, thus reducing the risk of cook-offs. There maybe more points i am Not Award of. But this is what i have come up with.
>>8182 That sounds more like what I'm thinking about, because using donkey as pack animals is not the same as old school cavalry with modern equipment. Can you tell us more about those mountains and horses? >>8605 Sounds like an overly complicated solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The soviets already developed trench-digging trucks and tanks that are a lot more safer than this system. And you can deploy barbed wire directly from the box under a few minutes. As for mines, artillery can deploy them directly in front of the enemy.
Open file (458.56 KB 3116x1992 40mm.jpg)
The problem with NATO 40mm automatic grenade launchers is that the grenades themselves are directly based on the high-low pressure ones developed for handheld grenade launchers. Therefore they are worse than 30mm Russian AGLs by every metric. A simple solution would be to keep the same 40mm case but develop an entirely new family of grenades. Part of that should be a ring airfoil grenade: http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/RAG.html https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=QsotLNuv0mo
Open file (5.22 MB 2848x4272 Heinkel_Lerche.JPG)
Open file (1.71 MB 2048x1372 Dornier_Aerodyne_E1.jpg)
This post >>9331 prompted me to read about tail-sitters, and found out that there was already a prototype drone made in the 1970s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Aerodyne And now I can't help but fantasize about drones that have the same general design as the Lerche, just significantly smaller, so that you can fit quite a few of them into a shipping container. They'd be perfect for semi-disposable scouting drones. You just need a few containers filled with drones, an other container that is the control station, an additional one to service the drones, and enough trucks to haul all these containers from one place to an other. You could even add a crane to the drone containers, so that you don't even have to take them off from the truck to load/unload the drones. What you'd have is an entirely mobile airfield.
>>9458 Funny how I can't recall these ever being mentioned in one of the militarized container ship breads on 8/k/, tailsitter ASW drones sound great for a modern AMC.
Open file (120.25 KB 786x1083 1533441500706.png)
>>7369 6.5 Creedmoor I hear good things about but to rule out any other round, what of >.270 Winchester >7x57 >6.5 Arisaka >6.5 Swede >.280 British And how much would it cost just to rechamber G3s, FALs, AKs, and ARs already in service to these rounds. Even then I think the most cost-effective option is to use the AK-74 or AR-15s in 5.45x39.
>>9465 Also 6.8 Whatever.
>>9460 The big question is though if you could use them to pick up sonar buoys. If yes, then they'd essentially combine the best features of helicopters and aeroplanes in that particular application.
>>9186 >The 40x180 (not yet in my collection) is the new "Super 40" round intended for rebarrelled versions of the ATK MK44 Chain Gun. Compared with the 30x173, the HE shell (designed for timed airburst) is 50% heavier and the APFSDS performance significantly improved. It is the closest rival to the 40mm Cased Telescoped Ammunition system ordered to replace the British Army's 30mm Rarden in light AFVs, but has so far attracted no orders. With this in mind, a better alternative for completely new 40mm grenades might be to use a cut-down 30x173mm case, because that would be able to deal with the inherently greater pressures involved. As an added bonus, an automatic grenade launcher firing these could use the same belt as the 30mm autocannons, slightly simplifying logistics. Or go even further beyond and design a new family of autocannons and AGLs in conjunction, so that they use as many common parts as possible, and even the different ones are similar enough so that somebody who is trained to repair one of them can deal with the other one. >>9465 All of those cartridges are longer than 7.62 NATO, expect .280 British. It means to rechamber even a FAL you'd have to cut the receiver in half, add a bit of metal to lengthen it, develop a new magazine for the longer cartridge, and also replace the barrel. This would be insanely complicated and expensive. And converting the FAL would be still the simplest one out of those for weapons. I can't even imagine what kind of a nightmare would be to redesign the G3's roller delayed system. If you want a ˝drop in solution˝ then just replace the barrel of the FAL for a necked down 7.62 NATO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.260_Remington
>>9525 6.5cm works in my M14 with just the barrel swap. Functions fine with the standard NATO mag too.
>>9549 I seriously doubt that a 65mm cartridge would work in that gun. But you should specify the actual cartridge, because there are a fuckton of 6,5mm cartridges out there.
>>9525 And how do they ballistically fare against 6.5CM.
>>9570 That's a bit of a hard question to answer, because ballistics are determined by a ton of things, but at the simplest it could be boiled down to three factors: >velocty of the projectile >weight of the projectile >shape of the projectile You can relatively easily compare cartridges of the same calibre, because you just have to look up the velocity they can accelerate a projectile of the same weight from the same barrel length, and then make all kinds of conclusions based on the difference in velocity. But even then, you should rely on actual data, and a ballistic chart based on that. With different calibres it becomes even more difficult to compare them without either making sweeping generalizations or just telling you to look up the ballistics charts. But generally it goes like this: >the 6-7mm range seems to be some kind of an optimum for rifle cartridges >heavier bullets are better at retaining energy, but you also want high muzzle velocity because that leads to a flatter trajectory >you want to balance these two somehow and in a way that keeps the recoil acceptable >and you also need to know what is an acceptable barrel length for you Based on all of this, I have no fucking idea how to compare them other than ˝yeah, I'd just go with 6.5mm CM, because that seems to work and I'd have a hard time to find an acceptable self-loading weapon for any of those cartridges˝.
Open file (28.56 KB 341x382 You live under rock.png)
>>9609 >springfield armory I hope you bought it before they cucked out.
>>9612 I built my own. Thinking of throwing a 6.5 FAL together one day.
>>9458 >make the drone from the lightest possible materials >use a turboprop engine for the propellers >install a ramjet in the tail section >for low speed and VTOL it uses the turboprop >at higher speeds the ramjet kicks in >preferably use the same tank to fuel both systems I of course have no idea if it would work, but if yes, then you could have a VTOL aircraft that can go stupid fast and doesn't need a complicated turbine engine and can be launched from virtually anywhere.
Open file (187.42 KB 1800x1421 40mm Bofors feed device.jpg)
Open file (140.84 KB 850x1024 Type 11's fingerbreaker.jpg)
I've found this picture for an alternative feed device for the 40mm Bofors that uses leadscrews, and that gave me an idea: you could use a hopper similar to the one in the Japanese Type 11 lmg, but the cartridges would be moved by a leadscrew instead of that complicated device. https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=JH9VQGht8CU https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=_qD9NmhMF8o It would be a straight upgrade, because you'd only have that screw in the bottom of the hopper, and it's not that complicated to translate the bolt's back-and-forth movement to move that screw. Of course it would be hopelessly obsolete for a machine gun, but I think it could work for an automatic grenade launcher mounted on a tripod that's meant for indirect fire. The hopper could hold 3x5 grenades, and so the assistant gunner could continuously refill it during firing, because it only need the spring pressure from the cover when it switches from one charger (or stripper clip for burgers) to the other. The hopper would be strictly for dismounted use, and the AGL should be designed so that the hopper can be switched for a belt-feeding device.
>>10131 And after making that post it dawned upon me that instead of a spring-loaded cover it would be better if there was a separate spring-loaded piece in the back of the hopper that is shaped like (for lack of a better comparison) the blade of a Guillotine. It would be a 2x5 hopper with a door on the ˝top level˝, and sliding in a loaded charger would push up the ˝blade˝.
>>10136 >>10131 Can you please post a sketch of the 'guillotine' bit?
Open file (41.52 KB 800x600 hopperguillotine.jpg)
>>10166 It really is a rough sketch, but I hope it can convey what I've had in mind.
>>10167 Ahh, cheers. I understand it now.
How would you make a medium range (100-500m) tranquilizer gun? I was thinking that the dart needs to be light to avoid severe injury/death for the target. Likewise the projectile needs sufficient mass to fly far enough which would suggest a sabot would be needed at some point. It would then use some air-bursting type electronics to make the sabot discard very close to the target. Thoughts?
>>10488 I think a better solution would be to have a piece of rubber in front of the dart and a spring between the two (maybe both of the dart, the spring, and the rubber are inside a tube). When it hits somebody the rubber hits first, then the dart moves forward and stabs through the rubber, but while being decelerated by the spring. Also, there was this contraption before: https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=6jli5MwO9Qk
>>10494 https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/High-Impulse_Weapon_System >The weapon's recoil-reducing system was said to involve a material "developed for the space program" that was referred to as "Dynasoft".[note 1] When the weapon fires, the entire barrel and breech is allowed to recoil for 600 millimeters, supposedly absorbing much of the felt recoil through frictional dampening. At the end of its travel, the breech opens and the expended round is automatically ejected. The system lacks any backblast. >In actuality, the 76mm projectile's light weight for its caliber and low muzzle velocity are most likely the reason it is capable of being fired by an infantryman: with a muzzle velocity of only 100 m/s with a 3.3 pound projectile (about a quarter to a fifth of the weight of an average 76mm projectile), muzzle energy is about 7,500 joules, less then half the muzzle energy of a Barrett M107. Therefore, the "Dynasoft" may well do nothing to reduce felt recoil at all, since the recoil is still very strong and the device requires some setup to fire without causing unintended injuries.[3] Besides, a 76,2mm shoulder-fired single-shot weapon is not at all a good replacement for an automatic grenade launcher.
>>10505 >High-Impulse_Weapon_System Fuck I love that thing.
>>10488 Perhaps no dart but a friable jet injector instead. Jet injectors are hand held devices used commonly for mas vaccinations, and there exist hand sized version of them. Diabetics also use those. They work by sending the liquid with sufficient speed into the body of the patient, without needle. Reducing the thing to fit in a round and still have the charge working would be interesting. The caliber might go up quite a bit, but if people can build a heat round it seems doable.
Open file (522.70 KB 1561x1176 950JDJ.jpeg)
Some kind of a hand-cranked rotary machine gun chambered for .950 JDJ would be pretty fun on paper, and perfectly legal to own in the US.
>>12596 >financial insolvency at 600rpm i'd buy it
>>12596 > and perfectly legal to own in the US. Would it be?
>>12597 You'd be quite the /fit/izen if you could crank the handle fast enough for that. >>12598 Yes, hand-cranked firearms are not machine guns, you can even buy an AR-15 lower if I'm not mistaken. And .950 JDJ has a sporting exception, so it's exactly as legal as .22LR or .50 BMG.
Open file (205.29 KB 626x331 Gatling_feedstip.png)
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/gatling-gun-feeding-mechanisms/ >The Model 1893 Gatling was introduced in the new military .30 US (aka .30-40 Krag) cartridge, and came with a feed strip system very similar to the Hotchkiss machine gun. The Army bought 18 of these guns, with the option to have them converted to Bruce Feed if the strip system was not satisfactory. >The benefit of the strip feed is that is was mechanically actuated by the gun (“Positive Feed” according to the Gatling company), because the rotating cylinder of the gun pulled in the cartridges. This allowed the gun to reliably feed at any speed and any angle of elevation, where gravity-based systems could become unreliable. The feed strips were possible to reload, but intended to be disposable. >Ultimately the feed strip system was unable to impress the Army, and in 1897 all 18 guns built with it were converted to the tried-and-true Bruce feed. You can see more diagrams of the system in the original Gatling feed strip system patent. I wonder how well a Gatling with 3 or even just 2 barrels would have worked in the world wars if it worked with feedstrips. That's still a reasonably light weapon that is quite reliable and doesn't care that much about the quality overall. A truly spectacular weapon would be one such Gatling with shoulder stock and bipod that was meant to be fired from the prone position. You'd need a ˝shaft˝ under the barrel cluster to mount the bipod on, bout you could place the handle right to the ˝stem˝ of the barrels to the underside) and place the feed system right in front of the shooter's face. With the bipod holding up the weapon you'd have enough space to work the handle without interfering with anything, and you could hold on to the stock with your off-hand for better control. And now remember that Germany (along with Austria and Hungary) was banned from developing and manufacturing machine guns. But maybe they could get away with Gatling guns instead. Imagine that instead of an MG34 or an MG42 every German squad has two such Gatling guns. Imagine if they actually made it work and so instead of something conventional they just pair them up with electric motors on their vehicles, so that every tank has rotary machine guns. Imagine a world of spinning barrels.
>>12609 >and doesn't care that much about the quality overall I mean the quality of ammunition. Considering the kind of things Germans were manufacturing by the end, a Gatling might work quite a bit better.
>>12599 >Yes, hand-cranked firearms are not machine guns I thought that "loophole" had been closed by the ATF?
>>12646 I don't think so, several states just outlawed them at the same time as they banned bump stocks and binary triggers
Flare guns are sometimes nigger-rigged to fire shotgun shells, and krauts even turned them into grenade launchers. So here is a simple idea: take a flare gun that is a bit better built than the average flare gun, and use it to fire shells that can demolish locks and doors. You could still use it to fire flares all the same, but now you don't need an underbarrel shotgun for this job.
>>13624 Why not just make a shotgun that can shoot flares?
>>13631 Because a flare gun is compact and simple, meanwhile a shotgun is an additional weapon that you wouldn't want to use in the overwhelming majority of situations. In other words, it minimizes dead weight.
Rebarrel an AK with a 9mm barrel Resize 7.62x39 cases to seat a 9mm bullet Reinvent 9x39 ??? Profit
>>13652 A new 9x39 that is absolutely noninterchangeable with 9x39. I have done this with a cz 527
>>13633 Aren't you asking for a short, single-barreled shotgun? If that's the case, then why not just have flares for a detached or underbarrel grenade launcher with a collapsible stock or some such thing.
Open file (105.80 KB 1200x600 ClipboardImage.png)
Would it be autistic to make a patch out of pic relatad?
>>13735 Patches by definition are autism.
Open file (374.61 KB 3772x2131 AK_Bullpup.jpg)
Open file (13.34 KB 300x169 tbh.jpg)
Open file (86.02 KB 1100x634 OA93.jpg)
Since there's the dumb 9mm/45 discussion again I thought I'd suggest something totally new. Start with a bullpup AR, or AK pistol. Add a .30 caliber barrel with a custom chamber for something that looks like the 300 WSM but is only half as long; expecting about 1750fps pushing a 147gr boat tail out of a 7" barrel. Would this shut up the fudds arguing between their century-old calibers, do you suppose? Would YOU carry such a beast? >>12596 I've been dreaming of this in an AR-platform rifle for weeks now. Thanks, Strelok.
>>14492 I get ~1600fps out of a 6 1/2" barrel with a 230gr .45WM. Yes I like your autism and would carry as impractical as it may seem
>>9525 >a new family of autocannons and AGLs in conjunction, so that they use as many common parts as possible, and even the different ones are similar enough so that somebody who is trained to repair one of them can deal with the other one. You could even lengthen the case, use a longer barrel, and load it with 40mm Bofors ammunition. If you manage to recreate the ballistics then you'll get the equivalent of a belt-fed 40mm L/70 Bofors gun, and have access to a wide variety of shells.
Bear with me, it can be hard to type with chronic vertigo so pardon any typos but my autist idea is a modernized Remington Model 8 in .5.56 Would the long recoil system even work with such a round?
>take a revolver designed to fire .410 shotshells >completely get rid of the barrel >make a .327 Federal Magnum cylinder and rifle the part of the hole behind the chamber And that's how you make a modern pepperbox revolver relatively easily.
>>18238 An actual multishot/multi barrel? What about flashover?
>>13631 Flare shells do exist for standard longarms if I am not mistaken
Open file (16.63 KB 440x320 24-barrel_pepperbox.jpg)
Open file (45.50 KB 795x610 1466632141329-0.jpg)
Open file (32.95 KB 800x346 1451832722888.jpg)
>>18415 >What about flashover? That's not really a problem so much anymore since we aren't using loose black powder anymore. Additionally one of the benefits of the old pepperbox was that, since there is nothing in front of the cylinder/barrels a chainfire isn't dangerous to the user or destructive to the gun. Of course if you're talking about an actual volley gun then the whole thing is moot because you're firing all barrels simultaneously anyway.
>>18415 What? No. It's the same as a simple revolver, just with the barrel screwed out, and with the chambers turned into rifled barrels.
>>18443 You know I'm really surprised that there AREN'T modern pepperboxes out there already. It's not like derringer form factor pistols have completely disappeared.
>>18446 People usually bring up that manufacturing the barrel cluster is hard. In practice it really is just a longer revolver cylinder with some rifling, so I don't see why it would be that hard to make one. It could be an alternative to pocket revolvers for the kind of person who doesn't want to worry about barrel alignment and has a problem with the cylinder gap for some reason or an other.
>>18446 Pepperboxes are significantly larger and heavier than a revolver for very little benefit.
>>18462 >Pepperboxes are significantly larger and heavier than a revolver But do they have to be?
>>18467 By purely how they operate, yes. Consider that gun barrels have weight and take up space. A pepperbox involves putting more barrels on a gun in various forms. It's a remnant of musket days. To make a sleek pepperbox for the modern age, you would have to either make a complex machine that wouldn't be serviceable, or you would have to modify the ammunition to its extreme to make it functional in any capacity beyond a tablepiece. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying that it's possible the way a 30+ round revolver rifle is.
>>18481 How is >>18238 unserviceable, and why does it need special ammunition?
>>18481 I'm not too well versed in firearms engineering, but here's an idea: how about taking an elongated revolver cylinder, barrel the front portion of the Chambers, then machine out spaces between the barreled portions (kinda like fluting a barrel), and then forcing on a hardened steel ring on the front, and spot-welding it in place for rigidity? Otherwise, all regular workings of a revolver would be kept, it just has no single barrel.
>>18483 I seriously doubt it would be any stronger than just leaving the cylinder alone. Or just don't flute the area near the muzzle end of the cylinder, although I don't think it would make any difference if it's made out of proper steel.
>>17978 The Frommer Stop works just fine, and that was designed to fire a pocket pistol cartridge. If the charge has enough power to push back the bolt and barrel (while also working against their springs) about a cartridge's length, then the system will work. Considering the pressure of 5.56, I don't see why you couldn't make a long-recoil operated firearm chambered for that cartridge.
http://www.warboats.org/stonerordnotes/Mk%2021%20Mod%200%20R4.html In short, the US Navy managed to make the old M1919 work with push-through links, even though it was designed for the pull-out type. And because of this I now really want to see a PKM converted to work with 7.62 NATO and M13 links. https://yewtu.be/watch?v=X_a7xo-Y3eU https://yewtu.be/watch?v=1Bf6kv1jZng Looking at how the PKM works, that claw is a simple thing that you couldn't convert to work with rimless ammunition, so maybe the solution is to replace it with an arm similar what the M1917 (and M1919) has. In theory the claw is replaceable, so you could somehow niggerrig an arm in its place, but you'd need to also replace the top cover with a different one that has a pathway to guide the new arm. But you'd have to completely reshape the part that feeds the belt anyway, due to the completely different dimensions of the cartridge and the belt. You'd also have to replace that part that holds the cartridge once it's pulled out from the belt. And I doubt the arm that moves the belt would work without any modification, so you have to replace that too. And you obviously need at the very least a different barrel and extractor, if not a completely new bolt too. At this point you'd have to work so much on the PKM that you might as well spend the money on a newly manufactured machine gun. But still, just imagine how many people would get upset simply because this thing exists.
>>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?
Open file (26.10 KB 560x652 img_4894.jpg)
>>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
Open file (456.47 KB 2038x767 Swedish_Kg_M1937_Left.jpg)
Open file (404.75 KB 2757x681 Swedish_Kg_M1921_Right.jpg)
Open file (464.12 KB 2500x813 Swedish_BAR_sled.jpeg)
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.
Open file (51.79 KB 800x559 545.jpg)
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.
Open file (231.51 KB 600x500 buttpat.gif)
>>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?
Open file (42.92 KB 474x616 infantry ERA.jpeg)
>>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?
Open file (888.71 KB 959x1200 ClipboardImage.png)
>>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?
Open file (1.62 MB 1080x1080 1636940889371.png)
>>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
Open file (144.36 KB 5816x2064 airburst.png)
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?
Open file (745.52 KB 1000x700 1636958614753.jpg)
>>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.
Open file (2.74 MB 2965x4342 1631177155248.jpg)
>>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?

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms

no cookies?