• Coolest/Ugliest Weapons v7 - SHOTGUNS
    5,001 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51212685]I don't genuinely don't know why when the AK12 failed to meet requirements of the Russian army that they didn't just ask for a new design that allowed them to just upgrade their existing hardware.[/QUOTE] Russia's been upgrading their existing AK-74 stocks to the 74M model for awhile now. Dunno if that counts.
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51212685]I don't genuinely don't know why when the AK12 failed to meet requirements of the Russian army that they didn't just ask for a new design that allowed them to just upgrade their existing hardware. [/QUOTE] [t]http://cs624218.vk.me/v624218985/31bb4/Ky2TYSJVkaE.jpg[/t] That's what the AK-74MR/M1/M3 upgrade is. It shares a lot of furniture and accessories with the current AK-12
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51212685]I don't genuinely don't know why when the AK12 failed to meet requirements of the Russian army that they didn't just ask for a new design that allowed them to just upgrade their existing hardware.[/QUOTE] The problem is that the AK74 and AR15 designs are pretty much the peak of practical technological possibilities currently available, since the last major change in firearms design happened in 1943, and the last major revolution in firearms technology happened in the mid-1800's. As long as we're throwing lead from a rifled barrel via a brass cartridge, we aren't going to have a big enough change to warrant spending billions on replacing anything. We've peaked in that department. Perfected the technology available. Not a good idea to throw money at diminishing returns.
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51212685] As for this thing. Is it really practical to turn any weapon into a airbust gun?[/QUOTE] As far as scifi shit goes, it's pretty feasible Rangefinder bolts on, calculates the optimum time to detonate (based on distance, speed and desired spread), then uses an RF transmitter to set the chambered round's internal fuse Now, making a 7.62x39 airburst grenade and getting that shit to work reliably is another story :v:
[QUOTE=Riller;51215432]The problem is that the AK74 and AR15 designs are pretty much the peak of practical technological possibilities currently available, since the last major change in firearms design happened in 1943, and the last major revolution in firearms technology happened in the mid-1800's. As long as we're throwing lead from a rifled barrel via a brass cartridge, we aren't going to have a big enough change to warrant spending billions on replacing anything. We've peaked in that department. Perfected the technology available. Not a good idea to throw money at diminishing returns.[/QUOTE] Pretty much as said, firearms wont change until we find a way to throw shit around without using the current brass cartridge and propellant method. Handheld railguns when?
If the Cold War had lasted another decade I think we'd have seen the mass adoption of the G11 by West Germany followed by other nations adopting caseless ammo.
[QUOTE=Riller;51215432]The problem is that the AK74 and AR15 designs are pretty much the peak of practical technological possibilities currently available, since the last major change in firearms design happened in 1943, and the last major revolution in firearms technology happened in the mid-1800's. As long as we're throwing lead from a rifled barrel via a brass cartridge, we aren't going to have a big enough change to warrant spending billions on replacing anything. We've peaked in that department. Perfected the technology available. Not a good idea to throw money at diminishing returns.[/QUOTE] Honestly this sounds like what people in those steampunk stories usually say regarding their super hi-tech steam cars. I think there's always a room for improvement, but yeah, it's going to be a horizontal progress, improving the parameters of the guns, but not the idea itself, just like the modern cars, filled to the brim with computers, are not that different from the very first carriages with primitive combustion engines slapped on them.
After playing Cod: IW's beta and getting a chance to look at the guns in it, I'm really liking the looks of their "KBAR-32" (basically some sort of LR-300-derived bullpup). [t]http://i.imgur.com/fBr7e2J.png[/t] Looks good IMO, and feels fairly realistic for a traditional-looking bullpup assault rifle. I can easily see how some might compare it to the M82 AR from the Killzone games though, with both seemingly based off the LR-300 and as such feature similar barrels and handguards, as well as both being bullpups.
[QUOTE=download;51215774]If the Cold War had lasted another decade I think we'd have seen the mass adoption of the G11 by West Germany followed by other nations adopting caseless ammo.[/QUOTE] well maybe mass adoption of caseless ammo but i think a simple semiautomatic that didn't fire 3 shots per cycle would be much more practical for the rest of the world
[QUOTE=Sableye;51216664]well maybe mass adoption of caseless ammo but i think a simple semiautomatic that didn't fire 3 shots per cycle would be much more practical for the rest of the world[/QUOTE] The G11 would do single-shots or regular full auto too. The three-round burst was an additional feature, and what was noticable about it was the entire action was in motion throughout the burst, meaning the recoil only hits after the third round. Pretty fuckin' clever.
[QUOTE=Riller;51216676]The G11 would do single-shots or regular full auto too. The three-round burst was an additional feature, and what was noticable about it was the entire action was in motion throughout the burst, meaning the recoil only hits after the third round. Pretty fuckin' clever.[/QUOTE] Didn't the G11have issues with the caseless ammo cooking off? And that's besides the stupidly complicated mechanism used in that gun. The design would have needed to been simplified to even make it to the military.
[QUOTE=download;51215774]If the Cold War had lasted another decade I think we'd have seen the mass adoption of the G11 by West Germany followed by other nations adopting caseless ammo.[/QUOTE] I don't think the G11 would have been adopted. It's a marvel of technology but part of that marvel is being a clockwork nightmare that doesn't actually offer that many significant advantages over something more conventional and introduces a host of problems of its own Caseless ammo is a cool concept, but it doesn't really improve all that much on cased ammunition outside of removing a manufacturing step and reducing weight and bulk Cased ammunition may be heavier and bulkier, but I think it's often underappreciated when this conversation comes up just how many benefits the weight of a metal case is bringing along with it The biggest benefit to cased ammo, I think, is durability. Metal cases can shrug off a lot of abuse and still function reliably as long as the primer is intact and the round can be chambered. You can dump hundreds of rounds into a metal can and transport that can to hell and back in the vehicle of your choice over the worst terrain imaginable and then chuck it out the back of a truck or throw it out of a helicopter or parachute it from the bay of a plane and still be confident that every single one of those rounds is going to be fit to be loaded into a magazine and fired without a hitch. The metal case is also a huge advantage if there is a hitch, because whatever the problem might be, it can usually be solved just by manually cycling the action The fragility of caseless ammunition was pretty well documented over the G11's lifetime, from the initial prototypes to the thousand or so actually issued for field testing, the caseless ammunition just couldn't hack it in terms of durability, most commonly would be the ammunition cracking and crumbling in the chamber or even just during handling, the former case presenting a huge problem for clearing since the crumbled propellant would remain in the chamber and could even get into the action itself. Durability issues probably could have been solved with further development, but I have my doubts they would ever have reached the same level of hardiness as conventional cased ammunition The next benefit of cased ammunition is that those cases are a heat sink. On top of reducing heat buildup in the chamber to begin with by providing a tight seal during firing, a huge amount of the heat is carried away with the metal cases as the weapon cycles. Even on a closed bolt machine gun, you're more likely to melt your barrel before you start having to worry about cookoffs. The G11 was notorious for its cookoffs, even after they switched a propellant with a higher ignition temperature. They were still a notable issue right up until the project's demise All that on top of having to retool basically the entirety of the existing manufacturing infrastructure in order to adopt it pretty much killed the G11 dead even before the wall fell and the Warsaw pact crumbled
I can only imagine how fucking terrible it must be when the G11's internals jam because of dust or something else in all the machinery. Some rifles are terrible enough in that aspect already, and they're not even made like a swiss wrist watch
The major flaw of the G11 was probably that it was a proof of concept of too many things at once, and ended up with way too many teething problems on every piece of new technology in it. Entirely recoiling action, 90-degree rotating chamber, caseless ammo, probably more. All tested in the same weapon instead of just going "Uhh. We built a G3. But it fires caseless. It's neat." and then another one that's like "It fires 9mm, but its' chamber rotates" and a third that's "It's a 5.56 rifle, but the receiver recoils within itself". So they could see what's worth working on and what's not, in individual weapons.
[QUOTE=Riller;51217071]The major flaw of the G11 was probably that it was a proof of concept of too many things at once, and ended up with way too many teething problems on every piece of new technology in it. Entirely recoiling action, 90-degree rotating chamber, caseless ammo, probably more. All tested in the same weapon instead of just going "Uhh. We built a G3. But it fires caseless. It's neat." [/QUOTE] this is what i meant. i think caseless ammo may be adopted in the future partly because of the enviromental concerns with spent casings and their collection, partly because it may greatly increase the carrying capacity of current soldiers but i think it would be built around an already solid weapon like a modification of an existing weapon platform
[QUOTE=Riller;51217071]The major flaw of the G11 was probably that it was a proof of concept of too many things at once, and ended up with way too many teething problems on every piece of new technology in it. Entirely recoiling action, 90-degree rotating chamber, caseless ammo, probably more. All tested in the same weapon instead of just going "Uhh. We built a G3. But it fires caseless. It's neat." and then another one that's like "It fires 9mm, but its' chamber rotates" and a third that's "It's a 5.56 rifle, but the receiver recoils within itself". So they could see what's worth working on and what's not, in individual weapons.[/QUOTE] This is what happens when you consolidate project-goals :v:
[QUOTE=Sableye;51217867]this is what i meant. i think caseless ammo may be adopted in the future partly because of the enviromental concerns with spent casings and their collection, partly because it may greatly increase the carrying capacity of current soldiers but i think it would be built around an already solid weapon like a modification of an existing weapon platform[/QUOTE] You mean this? [t]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/QGW1ekj-660x307.png[/t] It's an M4 platform that fires cased telescoping 6.5mm rounds. The future is now, and it's hella Arma 3.
[QUOTE=Mallow234;51218091]You mean this? [t]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/QGW1ekj-660x307.png[/t] It's an M4 platform that fires cased telescoping 6.5mm rounds. The future is now, and it's hella Arma 3.[/QUOTE] "M4 platform" seems like a bit of a stretch. It seems to share about zero functional parts with any AR15-type weapon.
[QUOTE=Riller;51218189]"M4 platform" seems like a bit of a stretch. It seems to share about zero functional parts with any AR15-type weapon.[/QUOTE] Only things I can tell it shares is the stock/buffer tube, pistol grip and barrel, the rest of the lower is basically new, pretty sure a normal AR lower could be adapted with a beefer upper, got a feeling theres more mechanism in that lower than there is normally so a swap around to have it in the upper might make more sense.
Looked the thing up a bit more closely, and it seems-... Less than good. 20 round magazine and a good 30% heavier than an M4. Ballistics of the round are impressive, but with those drawbacks in mind, it seems almost like a step towards battle rifles [sp]which I approve of but objectively probably isn't ideal[/sp] and away from the lightweight, compact carbines with emphasis on mobility.
[QUOTE=Riller;51218342]Looked the thing up a bit more closely, and it seems-... Less than good. 20 round magazine and a good 30% heavier than an M4. Ballistics of the round are impressive, but with those drawbacks in mind, it seems almost like a step towards battle rifles [sp]which I approve of but objectively probably isn't ideal[/sp] and away from the lightweight, compact carbines with emphasis on mobility.[/QUOTE] What if we phased out the majority of M4s in favor of a lightened version of this thing, but left a few for team and squad leaders? Get something a little like the 1940/50s TO&E going, but replace M1A1 Thompsons and M2 carbines with the M4.
[QUOTE=Riller;51218342]Looked the thing up a bit more closely, and it seems-... Less than good. 20 round magazine and a good 30% heavier than an M4. Ballistics of the round are impressive, but with those drawbacks in mind, it seems almost like a step towards battle rifles [sp]which I approve of but objectively probably isn't ideal[/sp] and away from the lightweight, compact carbines with emphasis on mobility.[/QUOTE] I believe that rifle is just a testbed that takes many cues from the AR-15 because of its ubiquity and familiarity in the US arms industry. It's purpose is to provide a baseline for the format of weapon that they're going for, which in this case is a 6.5mm Cased-Telescoped piston carbine. As the slide says, the weight is definitely not optimized yet, they just wanted to produce a working gun that shoots the round. Also this is being produced by AAI who has a history of just making testbeds/prototypes that never get adopted. They do a lot of the R&D though [t]http://shooting-iron.ru/_ph/10/272794778.jpg[/t] The round itself is also nowhere near final since they just reused the 7.62 Telescoped Case to test the 6.5 bullet. I imagine that they're going to optimize the cartridge size and propellant to make it smaller which would help increase the magazine capacity. The entire series of slides is here: [url]http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2016armament/18325_Phillips.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51218796]What if we phased out the majority of M4s in favor of a lightened version of this thing, but left a few for team and squad leaders? Get something a little like the 1940/50s TO&E going, but replace M1A1 Thompsons and M2 carbines with the M4.[/QUOTE] But the Thompson was heavier than the Garand. The Thompson was heavier than a FN FAL, even. Also, that's just a generally shoddy idea, to reduce the mobility and increase the load on your average riflemen.
[QUOTE=Riller;51220534]But the Thompson was heavier than the Garand. The Thompson was heavier than a FN FAL, even. Also, that's just a generally shoddy idea, to reduce the mobility and increase the load on your average riflemen.[/QUOTE] You misunderstand. I meant for a lightweight (let's say 7 lbs loaded) 6.5mm battle rifle, with M4s being issued to TLs and SLs for room clearing. Both weapons would be approximately the same weight and profile, but they'd be filling different roles.
[QUOTE=download;51215774]caseless ammo.[/QUOTE] Encasing the bullet in gunpower then calling it caseless is hardly caseless. I think the gyrojet gun would be more caseless than the G11 as it's completely contained within the actual bullet.
if no casing is left behind after firing it's caseless why is the g11 not caseless if the stuff surrounding the bullet burns away anyway?
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51221005]Encasing the bullet in gunpower then calling it caseless is hardly caseless. I think the gyrojet gun would be more caseless than the G11 as it's completely contained within the actual bullet.[/QUOTE] Your statement contradicts every other persons position on what caseless ammo is.
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51221005]Encasing the bullet in gunpower then calling it caseless is hardly caseless. I think the gyrojet gun would be more caseless than the G11 as it's completely contained within the actual bullet.[/QUOTE] Are you high my man
[QUOTE=Toy_Soldier;51221385]Are you high my man[/QUOTE] He's gone full caseless, never go full caseless...
[QUOTE=Toy_Soldier;51221385]Are you high my man[/QUOTE] No, Sims_doc is known for making zero sense with his posts. It's a whole bunch of fancy words but they don't make any sense.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.