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

[Stealhead]

@RedOctober

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

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

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

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

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

@RedOctober

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

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

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

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

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

Homework?

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

I'll look them up anyway

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

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

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

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

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


---

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

[Stealhead]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[soopaman2]

Big fan of the m-14.

Inferior to the m16 in every way. Vietnam, and politics messed up our standard service rifle.

M14 way more punch and range, hands down.

Eugene Stoner also made the m16, which compared to the m14, is a pile of crap.

He wanted to be the Kalashnikov of America, but instead stuck us with a decent rifle with a mediocre round.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Big fan of the m-14.

Inferior to the m16 in every way. Vietnam, and politics messed up our standard service rifle.

M14 way more punch and range, hands down.

Eugene Stoner also made the m16, which compared to the m14, is a pile of crap.

He wanted to be the Kalashnikov of America, but instead stuck us with a decent rifle with a mediocre round.

Eh? Probably a typo.


On the subject of M-14's, can anyone identify the rifle's show in this video?


Also on the subject of M-14's, i'll also link this m14 / M1A lover's self pleasuring video:
http://www.history.com/shows/top-sho...ns-rundown-m1a

As to Armalite Rifle No 15, the story behind it is interesting. Albiet you'll find bias for or against depending on who you talk. If one has the time to kill, here's a 45 minute documentary on it by the history channel.


My personal take is the M-16 was rushed into service, came into service before it was ready and unnecessarily costing lives as a result. I believe both the M-14 and the M-16 series have their place, and fulfill slightly different roles. If i had to pick just one rifle though, I'd take the M-14 for its versatility, range, and punch - although, that comes at a cost of being able to carry less ammo.

[Stealhead]

I fully agree with Ducimus and completely disagree with Soopa typo not withstanding.

Stoner did not make the M16 Colt did. The M16 had problems because it was rushed into service and was billed as self cleaning wepon which was never a claim made by Stoner or Armalite.Colt purchased the rights because they had the production capacity they are the ones that failed to have the barrel and bolt chromed which greatly reduces rust.The army can also be blamed because they by mistake or lack of understanding(it is not known which for certain) changed the powder to a type that was much dirtier than what Colt recommended.


Both rifles do have their place and contrary to popular belief the M-14 was not a trouble free weapon.In its natural role that of a semi-automatic rifle it performed well the M21 also performed well bridging the gap between a standard rifle and pure sniping rifle at the time M40(bolt action).

It also had another role that of squad automatic weapon to replace the BAR the M14A1.In this role it was an abysmal failure it was simply uncontrollable on automatic fire so much so so that the Army and Marine Corps removed this model from service.

On top of this nearly all of the early production M-14s had the automatic sear removed.You can ID an A1 because they have a weird looking pistol grip behind the trigger and also have a bipod and a funky looking fore grip as well as a muzzle brake with drilled holes rather than the slots of a standard M-14.

The M-14 in my opinion did not succeed fully in its intended role because it was simply uncontrollable under fully automatic fire.This role was failed by every western post war rifle because the 7.62x51mm round is simply to heavy to be controllable in an 8~10 pound weapon under full auto conditions.From a production standpoint it also to some extent failed because it was costly to produce.The DOD could not afford to fully arm the military with the M-14 many reserve and national Guard units where stuck with M-1 Garands into the 1970s.Part of this was do to the M-14 not being easy to mass produce.

One of the factor that proves that the M16 series was in fact if properly treated a fine weapon is that many elite units in Vietnam who could choose the weapons they carried many of these guys choose to carry the M-16 or more commonly the XM177 sometimes called a Car-15.

I have asked my father this question many times as he was an LRRP in Vietnam and he preferred to carry the XM177 and he tried at different times
several firearms including the AK-47(90% of the time in Vietnam a Chinese Type 56) and even ANZAC FN FALS.He told me that the key was the typically range of combat and the weight of the weapon to him where the most important factors.And the XM was the lightest and most easy to quickly bring to bear it also had/has fewer steps(motions) in reloading something that your life might hang in the balance on.Weapon length is a huge factor as well at close range the longer you weapon is the slower your movement will be.

The other huge factor especially in Vietnam is weight the weather is brutal there and you really feel all that gear that you hump so more weight is always a negative when you have other options.

In modern combat the environment changes it can go from urban where a larger heavier rifle is a disadvantage to a more open one where you can use the benefit of a larger caliber.That is why you see the variation in weaponry most troops will carry an M-4 but you have some that are carrying a heavier DMR weapon it might be an M4/16 with a heavier barrel and also firing heavier grain rounds or it might be an M14EBR or one of the other modern variations of the M-14.The way I see it the M-14 in its modern forms gets to shine while in the past it was forced to be the jack of all trades a role that no firearm can truly fulfill.

Furthermore unless you have really put a lot of time on the range with both the M-16 and M-14 you really cant say which one is better for you.And the question of what is better for an armed force I have already answered.Not trying to knock you Soopa but for many people even big guys the M-14 just does not fit their needs.

Stepping off of the soap box now.


@Ducimus They look like M-14s to me was that some sort of trick question?

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

@Ducimus They look like M-14s to me was that some sort of trick question?

Yes it was.

As to M-14 vs M-16, in terms of an urban environment... technically i want neither. I think. Is the M4 technically considered it's own gun? Cause that's what i would want if i was thrown into an Urban environment. Short, light weight, and the round can go as far as it needs to. The situation is really dynamic. You can go from short range to medium range fairly quickly. So the M4 fits that nitch perfectly i think.

Now, the argument of M14 vs M16 is an old one amongst aficionado 's of either platforms. Kind of like "ford vs chevy". That said, there is a reason why M14's have reappeared from deep within the bowels of DOD armory's.

The 5.56 round was found insufficient, i believe primarily because of range, as they were only intended for 200-300 yard engagements if i remember correctly.

Now can the M14 be used in the same role as the M16 or M4? I think so, however it has it's drawbacks, with weight being the top detractor, size as mentioned being the second. (not so much if you look at the scout squad or Socom 16 M1A's) It certainly isn't a rifle for everyone, to use it effectively for extended periods of time, you really do need to be fit. My M1A, unloaded with an empty mag, and without a scope on it, is 11.2 pounds. Now add twenty 7.62 rounds and shoot it standing unsupported or even with a loop or hasty sling for about 50 rounds. Then the weight really starts to show.

All that said, in a SHTF scenario, here in the US, the M14 /M1A would be my go to rifle, for reasons i think i've already mentioned.