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

[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.