The general firearms thread!

[Woldan]

I've got an easy and very cost efficient solution for you, Wals.  Take an ordinary hollow point bullet (Or drill a hole into the tip of a bullet), fill the hollow point with molten silver and voilà! You have an anti-beasty round that works just as well as an ordinary bullet. To ensure better silver dispersion in the body of your target you can drill the hollow point deeper and don't fill the hole entirely so it still acts like a hollow point. 

Though you should be aware of hollow points inefficiency against large, dangerous, mythical game. I advise using heavy high SD solids for deep penetration to reach the vitals. Nothin sucks more than shallow wounds from HP's that create mere skin irritations for the really big beasts. 

 

Oh yeah, and I just wanted to mention that I'm pretty happy that there is an ocean between your country and mine. We might have problems with huge mutated ducks and occasional dinosaur attacks but at least I can still use lead bullets. 

Edited April 4, 2014 by Woldan

[Walsingham]

We need a special 'Monarchy' round for shooting supernatural enemies of the queen.

 

Base it on the Black Talon round from Winchester, but it should form a royal rose shape.

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2014 by Walsingham

[Walsingham]

Incidentally, while looking these up I came across these rather interesting revolvers from Chiappa firearms.

 

http://www.chiappafirearms.com/product/727

 

Barrel is in line with the lowest point on the cylinder rather than the upper. I'd love to try it. Sounds like genius human factors engineering to me.

[Guard Dog]

Incidentally, while looking these up I came across these rather interesting revolvers from Chiappa firearms.

 

http://www.chiappafirearms.com/product/727

 

Barrel is in line with the lowest point on the cylinder rather than the upper. I'd love to try it. Sounds like genius human factors engineering to me.

I was just reading about those. I'd like to try one before taking the plunge though.

[Woldan]

Barrel is in line with the lowest point on the cylinder rather than the upper. I'd love to try it. Sounds like genius human factors engineering to me.

I actually think its pretty sad that it took people 150 years to understand basic physics like leverage. I've always asked myself why they didn't lower the cylinder and barrel of a sixgun to reduce muzzle flip.

People have been doing this with rifles for decades. Look at the AR or the FAL, barrels are almost perfectly in line with the butt stock, and those guns have very little muzzle raise. 

Edited April 4, 2014 by Woldan

[Walsingham]

I'm going to be all cynical and suggest it's because it is cheaper and more 'efficient' to build a revolver with the foresight on the barrel at the top.

 

Because Gods forbid we should do something just because it was better.

 

Alternatively I could rant about how most engineers don't pay the slightly goddamn attention to the fact that a human has to operate a device.

[Aram]

Having handled one of those Chiappas, I can attest to them being utter garbage.

[Agiel]

US Army issuing the Carl Gustav 84mm Recoilless Rifle..again. 

 

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/80401a4e4ebb

 

 

We got never rid of ours, its a truly awesome and capable weapon system. Portable artillery.  

 

Swedes shooting theirs: 

 

To add to that, the Swedes also came up with the brilliant RBS-56 BILL:

 

 

So brilliant in fact, Raytheon copied the principle for the TOW 2B.

[Walsingham]

Having handled one of those Chiappas, I can attest to them being utter garbage.

 

Could you elaborate? I'm genuinely interested.

[Woldan]

To add to that, the Swedes also came up with the brilliant RBS-56 BILL:

 

What amazes me is the paratrooper at the last third of the vid landing on both his legs without even rolling off to dampen the landing. I was being told that if you do that with full combat load with a falling velocity of 8+ meters a second your legs snap if you're lucky, if you're unlucky both your legs AND you back snaps.-

 

Could you elaborate? I'm genuinely interested.

So am I.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Woldan

[Aram]

 

Having handled one of those Chiappas, I can attest to them being utter garbage.

 

Could you elaborate? I'm genuinely interested.

 

Manufacturing standards that belong on cheap throwaway guns. Wobbly cylinders. Huge barrel/cylinder gaps way out of spec. Crappy, extremely heavy double action triggers that pull slightly upward as well as back. The ergonomics were terrible. The tiny hammer spur and difficulty of reaching it paired with the incredibly heavy mainspring seemed like it was actually trying to discourage you from shooting it single action. Maybe these things were just distracting me, but in practice I didn't notice any particular recoil advantage over your regular revolver either.

[Walsingham]

 

 

Having handled one of those Chiappas, I can attest to them being utter garbage.

 

Could you elaborate? I'm genuinely interested.

 

Manufacturing standards that belong on cheap throwaway guns. Wobbly cylinders. Huge barrel/cylinder gaps way out of spec. Crappy, extremely heavy double action triggers that pull slightly upward as well as back. The ergonomics were terrible. The tiny hammer spur and difficulty of reaching it paired with the incredibly heavy mainspring seemed like it was actually trying to discourage you from shooting it single action. Maybe these things were just distracting me, but in practice I didn't notice any particular recoil advantage over your regular revolver either.

 

 

I only ask by way of a general issue: could it have been a fake? You get fake clothes, drugs, and (so I've heard) even cars. Do you get fake guns?

[Aram]

Maybe in like the 1910s when they made knockoff Webleys and S&Ws in Belgium and Spain, back when a hundred hours of educated hand labor cost a nickel, but certainly not since. I guess I heard of something recently about Chinese Glock knockoffs, but those are only in China as far as I know, and the defining characteristic of the Glock design is its utter ease of manufacturing. You need many millions of dollars in labor and equipment to make a gun as complex as a revolver.

 

I'm not the only one to voice these concerns regarding this particular specimen.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Aram

[Aram]

Now, when you get into the world of antique collectible guns, like the kind people will pay five or six figures for, things like counterfeit markings being engraved into otherwise identical guns, or counterfeit original boxes, or artificial aging or covering up evidence of restoration does become a concern, but that's another animal entirely.

[Walsingham]

I'm such an idiot. I just remembered that Pakistan has a thriving and often times hilarious market in counterfeit rifles.

 

Edited April 7, 2014 by Walsingham

[Aram]

Hillarious as it may be, I'd give at least as much props to those Khyber Pass smiths churning out fully functioning pistols and rifles on anvils out of railroad spikes as I'd give just about any overpriced, high end gun manufacturer in business today.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Aram

[Walsingham]

Hillarious as it may be, I'd give at least as much props to those Khyber Pass smiths churning out fully functioning pistols and rifles on anvils out of railroad spikes as I'd give just about any overpriced, high end gun manufacturer in business today.

 

LOL

 

Point.

 

Question: perhaps a gun could be designed specifically for them?

 

I doubt it would be of any interest to a manufacturer, but it might be a good student project.

[sorophx]

A bullpup AR-15

I can never understand the appeal of bullpup rifles. yes, it reduces the overall length while keeping the barrel length relatively big. but everything else about them is so off-putting 

[Walsingham]

 

A bullpup AR-15

I can never understand the appeal of bullpup rifles. yes, it reduces the overall length while keeping the barrel length relatively big. but everything else about them is so off-putting 

 

 

I know it's just more evidence that I was never a proper soldier, but I actually like the new SA80.

[sorophx]

modified L85s actually look somewhat cool with all the picatinnies and the front grip. but that's thanks to their retro design and lack of that stupid carrying handle. 

 

I personally think that Stoner's design is nearly impossible to beat, modern versions of the carbine version of his AR-10 (like the ACC-M) are possibly the most thought out rifles: accuracy, handling, ergonomics, easy maintenance etc.

[Walsingham]

Woe betide the man who tries to actually carry an SA80 by the 'suitcase handle'. I've never seen it. Not once.

[Monte Carlo]

Bullpup weapons were designed simply to reduce overall weapon length. Which it did.

 

However, this is where the law of unintended consequences came into play.

 

1. Issues with left-handed shooters (i.e. me). The British army SA80 never had an optional left / right handed bolt assembly / ejector port. I had to fire it right handed, when my muscle memory told me to look for left-handed cover. Luckily I never went on a proper two-way range.

 

2. Bullpup weapons were conceived in the days before rails, flashlights, uber-optics and tricked-out modular weapons systems. The back-heavy configuration of most bullpup weapons means that they are not optimally balanced to have all sorts of kit bolted to them. Note how the British army McGuyvered foregrips on the SA80 to offset this.

 

 

3. Short weapons are dangerous in range and training environments. The most dangerous bastard weapon of all is the pistol, because it's so small and easily pointed (unlike a long rifle, where you are more situationally aware of where the thing is pointing). Next is the submachinegun then comes bullpup rifles. I don't have stats to prove it but well remember sprog squaddies pointing SA80s around in a way they never did with the long SLR (FN-FAL).

 

4. A more general point, but bullpup weapons seem to suit smaller calibre rounds. I don't think there are many 7.62mm versions of bullpup weapons knocking about, and as militaries start moving back towards larger calibre rounds we might see the next generation of small arms move back to the traditional config.

[Monte Carlo]

Woe betide the man who tries to actually carry an SA80 by the 'suitcase handle'. I've never seen it. Not once.

 

Only Pogues have those. Infantrymen have SUSAT sights and giggle at blanket-stackers with suitcase handles.

[Azdeus]

4. A more general point, but bullpup weapons seem to suit smaller calibre rounds. I don't think there are many 7.62mm versions of bullpup weapons knocking about, and as militaries start moving back towards larger calibre rounds we might see the next generation of small arms move back to the traditional config.

 

There are a few Sniper rifles, DSR 1 for instance, the Russian SVU, VSSK, KSVK and the Walther WA 2000. The russians also have an AR bullpup chambered in the 7.62*39 & 9*39 cartridges.

I think they should keep going with the bullpup style rifles and use the ejection system that the F2000 uses.

But I'm really biased.

[Woldan]

I personally think that Stoner's design is nearly impossible to beat, modern versions of the carbine version of his AR-10 (like the ACC-M) are possibly the most thought out rifles: accuracy, handling, ergonomics, easy maintenance etc.

 

The AR has always been and will always be a completely overrated mediocre weapons system. If the US military didn't adopt it nobody would even waste a thought on it. The Design depends too much on lubrication, use too little and it jams, run it dry and it doesn't work at all, use the wrong one or too much and the gun gums up because of the powder residue mixes with the oil. Heat + oil + powder residue creates a material similar to tar.

Tight tolerances, some sand or dirt renders the gun inoperable. Some say it runs better with super exclusive dry lubricants a'la graphite and that stuff.

Oh, and direct impingement, powder residue and gas blows right into the action of the gun, you know, that action with tight tolerances. How genius is that? Its like a car with the exhaust pipes leading into the engine bay where it sprays the super sensitive engine and everything with diesel residue, oil and slag. Doesn't sound very awesome? Thats because it isn't.

 

Two friends of mine traded their AR's for Steyr AUG'sn because of their guns' underwhelming reliability (on the shooting range under perfect conditions), another friend has been trying to get his Bushmaster AR-10 run trouble-free for 1.5 years now and he soo wishes that he took the Saiga in .308 instead (which I recommended to him).

 

The AR has very good accuracy, ergonomics and a good trigger thats about it. Give me a piston Steyr AUG, piston FN-FAL or piston AK, keep your sh!ts-where-it-eats direct impingement AR. A weapon system thats not reliable nor dependable and needs constant cleaning and lubing is worthless for battlefield conditions.

 

FN-FAL / L1A1 for example, its accuracy may not be as good as the AR's but its dead-reliable, thanks to the piston it stays super-clean, tolerances are bigger which makes the gun still able to run under dirty conditions. It also comes with an adjustable gas plug which allows you to increase the gas bleed-off in case the gun gets REALLY dirty and the bolt needs extra oomph. It handles almost as well as the AR, its layout is similar. All its parts are totally over-engineered, the AR feels like a cheap toy in comparison. A few drops of random motor oil in and on the bolt carrier and its good to go for thousands of rounds in all kinds of battlefield conditions and environments with utter reliability.

 

And for the record, when I served in the military I got the Steyr AUG aka STG77, the rear-heaviness of the rifle didn't bother me, it was simply too light to be uspet about the way it balances. Give me a badly balanced 6kg rifle and I'll complain, but a 3,5 kg rifle cant be so awefully balanced that it would bother me. To me all rifles in that weight class balance roughly the same when tightly pulled into the shoulder. 

Edited April 9, 2014 by Woldan