Fantastic Firearms Part 2 - General

[QUOTE=Resistance777;16517285]Do the Hk33.[/QUOTE] Oh hurf Durf a G3 chambered in 5.56. That totally warrants a separate article. Not.

Not to be making to many requests but what about the M1897 Trench Gun

[QUOTE=jgerm529;16519486]Not to be making to many requests but what about the M1897 Trench Gun[/QUOTE] Fuck yeah, I could go for a article on the trench gun.

Me too! I would like to know about its origin.

I agree.

86)Winchester 1897 Shotgun [img]http://www.imfdb.org/images/2/21/WinchesterM1897.jpg[/img] Photo Swagged from IMFDB. This is a "riot" version. The civilian versions had significantly longer barrels. Contrary to popular belief this isn't the wold's first pump-action although it is the first successful one. The first such weapon would have been the "Spencer Pump Gun" which was made in the 1880's. Back then the pump-action had yet to prove itself. The way people saw it if your shotgun had one barrel it was a single shot and if it had two it was a double. Pump-actions were untrustworthy and ungentlemanly. Anything new was. Because of this, combined with its own flaws which were numerous, the Spencer was a total failure. Eventually, working from what he saw as a work of genius John Browning used the basic concept of the Spencer to make a pump-action shotgun of his own. Only this time he would do it right. He failed. The result was not the Winchester 1897, it was the 1893. This weapon, while a great improvement over the Spencer and essentially a combination of that and Winchester's many lever-actions had a critical safety failure. Coupled with inherently weak construction and poor reliability it was taken out of production in 1897 with an updated version which was ready for the duck hunt. This was the gun that we are more familiar with. Winchester even went so far as to recall and replace all existing 1893s to avoid lawsuits. Except nobody bought this new improved shotgun. It too was a marketing disaster. For the same reasons the Spencer failed no one wanted anything to do with such a "complex" device. Mix in the appalling reputation of the 1893 and the Spencer and we have a weapon that is going nowhere fast. This was however, until fate intervened in the form of the first world war. By the time America entered this conflict, it was known that such a shotgun would be very handy in trench warfare since it could be fired much faster and packed a more fierce punch at that close range, you would have been EXTREMELY lucky to be issued one. Here, on the battlefield this weapon earned its reputation as well as a number of nicknames such as "The Widowmaker", "The Thumb-Breaker" (Due to the cocking piece which protruded backwards when the pump was moved back) and "The old 97". Those that used them, loved them. The Germans however despised them, considering it an ungodly abomination of the battlefield. Any GI captured with it was executed on the spot. After the war Germany petitioned for shotguns to be banned by the Geneva Convention. Having proved itself an effective weapon many GIs bought them as surplus once the war ended and took them hunting. After the war once the arsenals of surplus were depleted (which took about a week) Winchester was swamped with millions of orders from both law enforcement and civilians. Everyone and their uncle wanted one. During the 1920s police raids were often spearheaded by an officer with this gun because it was so grizzly and intimidating, particularly the sound of it being pumped. It pioneered the now prolific relationship between a cop and his shotgun, something that up until then was a rarity. After the collapse of the stock market few people could afford so much as a mid-range double-barrel shotgun, but the price of the '97 remained as low as ever, making it a very affordable "people's gun" much like the Mossbergs and Remingtons of today. They were used to put food on many tables, often when there was simply no other way to do so. But its military service wasn't over by a longshot. Although Winchester created the Model 12 which is an improvement of this design, some old '97s were pressed back into service in WW2 (although not in the European theater, due to the Germans hatred of anyone carrying such a weapon), a number were re-used in Korea and Vietnam although by then the guns in service were very old and dilapidated. Production of the 1897 was halted in the 1950's due to competition from more sophisticated and solid designs such as the 870 and Mossberg. Today an original Winchester 1897 is worth about 1000$, more if it has seen WW1 and more still if it fought against Japan in WW2. It would be worth more but well over a million were made. 1893s are worth slightly more as well but not by much since they are considered very dangerous to use. While Winchester doesn't make them anymore a Chinese company makes a reproduction for about 400$, they also make lever-action 1887s. But with much higher-quality American-made shotguns available for less these guns are mainly marketed to people who participate in cowboy-action-shooting (a somewhat new marksmanship sport where the shooters need to use period-accurate firearms).

That was actually a good read. I never knew the origins of the pump shotty. Now I do.

You have a consistency issue. First, you call the earlier version the 73, then the 93. Fix that. Actually, you have quite a few naming errors. You mean 'the old 97' rather than '79' I think. Proof reading isn't so hard.

[QUOTE=Exalion;16534609]You have a consistency issue. First, you call the earlier version the 73, then the 93. Fix that. Actually, you have quite a few naming errors. You mean 'the old 97' rather than '79' I think. Proof reading isn't so hard.[/QUOTE] The 73 was the first version, the 93 is the precursor to the 97 that had major issues, and was recalled and replaced with the 97. The 97/79 thing is a simple typo, he doesn't copy paste much, if anything in these.

Nice ariticle there sir Bean-O.

[QUOTE=Deadoon v.2;16534737]The 73 was the first version, the 93 is the precursor to the 97 that had major issues, and was recalled and replaced with the 97. The 97/79 thing is a simple typo, he doesn't copy paste much, if anything in these.[/QUOTE] Actually Exalion is right, it was a strait-up proofreading error. I must have had the number "73" stuck in my head for some reason. It has been fixed.

Silly Imperial Germany, complaining about everything from shotguns to dum dum rounds.

87)Chauchat [img]http://www.gunsworld.com/french/graphs/chauchat.jpg[/img] I know what you're saying. "This is the worst weapon of all time, what the HELL is it doing on this list?" Well it could very well be among the worst guns ever made, but damn if it isn't influential. Also the exact degree to which it sucks has been skewed by a colossal fuck-up, as I shall explain. As far as turn-of-the-century firearm designs go the Chauchat was actually quite a revolutionary concept. Rather than having another maxim copy that weights over 150 pounds you make lighter magazine-fed automatic guns that can be carried by one guy to support a squad or just be a much more sprightly and maneuverable MG on the battlefield. Working from (IE ripping off) John Browning's patent for a "Long barrel recoil rifle" Rudolf Frommer and Louis Chauchat designed such a weapon in 1907. Field tests were, at first, promising. Although the ergonomics were absolutely horrible, requiring a new user to essentially tame the gun it worked decently enough. It was chambered in 8mm Lebel, the standard service caliber of the French. It was select-fire, although the rate of fire was slow at about 240 rounds per minute. This was done to make the distinctive U-shaped 20 round single-stacked magazine last longer. During testing it didn't work flawlessly, but it functioned adequately for the most part. Essentially the French army now had a gun that actually worked quite well on paper. So what went wrong? The answer is just about everything. The biggest problem was manufacturing. Although on paper this gun worked well the biggest manufacturer was "Gladiator", a motorcycle company. While they didn't fuck up the barrel, they did screw up everything else. The barrel and recoil system were precision machined from solid blocks of steel, but the receiver and everything else were made out of insidiously cheap and shoddy stamping. These guns broke constantly. They were also so incredibly sloppy that aside for the barrel and gas units the parts were often not even interchangeable. Even the magazines from one gun often failed to fit another. When issued strait from the factory they would have to have been disassembled and each of the parts modified to work properly. The worst part is that throughout Chauchat's service life (which ended in 1944) Gladiator made the largest amount of them at just over 225,000. There was another factory called SIDARME which actually did it right, but in all they only made about 65,000 in all. But even these weapons fell victim to a large variety of genuine design flaws. Of all of these flaws the magazine was a huge weak link. It had holes cut out in it so that the gunner could see how much ammo they have left which let dirt get in. The solution, obviously, is not to fight where it is muddy. What's that? WW1? Trench Warfare? Lots of mud? Well that gunner is SOL now, because not only does that magazine serve as a mud-magnet the workings too are very exposed. Cleaning? Hadn't thought of that. There were actually a fair number of variants of these guns too, all were made by Gladiator since SIDARME made only the 8mm Lebel versions which were exclusive to French armed forces. During WW1 Romania, Russia, Belgium, Serbia, Greece, Poland and Italy used a couple thousand each, which were given to them by France for helping out. Many were re-chambered for calibers such as 8mm Mauser and 7.62x54mmR but the only country that liked them was Poland which formally adopted it as an LMG. There were also AEF versions which were re-chambered to 30.06. Of all the variants these were the very worst since they started out as very poorly made 8mm Lebel guns and then very sloppily re-chambered to 30.06. Those that were issued to American troops were inspected and swiftly discarded as useless. Sometimes they didn't even have .30 caliber barrels. Many were unsafe to fire, if you could get them to fire off any shots at all. They were more useful as bludgeons than anything else. Ok then... The point is reiterated, what is this weapon doing on the list? Firstly the 30.06 Chauchats were the worst, but the 8mm Lebel and Mauser versions did function to some degree. They weren't stellar and anyone would rather have a Lewis Gun any day of the week but the French swore by them. It is essentially a "pretty lousy" weapon that many people consider to be the "worst" because of what the Americans said about theirs (in which case they would be right). Secondly these were quite successful, about a thousand or more were used by almost every country that fought the German Empire in WW1. It was the most mass-produced automatic weapon of the war. Indeed they still saw use in WW2 and the Winter War as well. A number were even spotted in Vietnam (since it used to be a French colony). More importantly this gun is the first somewhat successful LMG. It predated the Lewis, BREN, BAR and DP. In fact it is because of the Chauchats widespread influence (as well as its failings) in WW1 that these weapons came into being. It ushered in the concept of having a lighter automatic weapon for squad support which lead to the LMGs of WW2 and by proxy the invention of the Assault Rifle.

[QUOTE=Bean-O;16553411]Big Article.[/QUOTE] You forgot to talk about "The Slap"!!!

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;16553541]You forgot to talk about "The Slap"!!![/QUOTE] What's that?

He also forgot the horrible bolt design. I wondered at first, but I see what he did there.

[QUOTE=Bean-O;16553411]87)Chauchat [img]http://www.gunsworld.com/french/graphs/chauchat.jpg[/img] [/QUOTE] n1 bean-o :) [editline]03:44PM[/editline] i like the design of it

[QUOTE=Bean-O;16531961]86)Winchester 1897 Shotgun [img]http://www.imfdb.org/images/2/21/WinchesterM1897.jpg[/img] [/QUOTE] Very very nice article. I've seen a few of those around here. Very very cheap in terms of price compared to the other stuff but wow nelly those things were feeling abuse of time.

[QUOTE=Gubbinz96;16565264]Very very nice article. I've seen a few of those around here. Very very cheap in terms of price compared to the other stuff but wow nelly those things were feeling abuse of time.[/QUOTE] With a little repair you should be able to fire that thing no problem. I'd just check to make sure there isn't any substantial pitting in/on the barrel or any parts of the action.

I usually don't like to bump my thread from the second page but I didn't do anything yesterday because it was on the second page then and I don't want to let this thread die quite yet. So what do you guys want me to write about? I've got: AR10 series Agram 2000 M60 Winchester 12 Lewis Gun -and anything else you can suggest.

C7 and C8? Besa machine gun too.

What was the first mass produced gun with a silencer?

Integrated silencer or a detachable one? If integrated, I'd imagine one of the Sten gun marks was pretty early. There's the De Lisle carbine. they are both WW2 designs. I don't know if there was a MP18 variant with an integrated silencer. That would be WW1. As for detachable, well they've been put on pistols for years. Don't take my word for it, but that's my best guess.

[QUOTE=Darkhorse01;16590004]C7 and C8? Besa machine gun too.[/QUOTE] The C7 and 8 are just M16s made by Diemaco which is the Canadian division of Colt. There is no huge difference between them and the M16s America uses other than the fact that they are much higher quality. Don't know much about the Besa, I'm not even sure that it was used that widely.

It was on most British vehicles from the 30's to the end of the war.

Mondragon.

AR10. doitfgt

How about the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle?

88)AR-10 series [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Ar-10.jpg[/img] This isn't an M16 copy that has been scaled up to 7.62 NATO. At least it wasn't at first. In fact the AR-10 pre-dates the AR-15 which would become the M16 and all of its spiffy low-caliber variants. The whole story starts with the M1 Garand. In the 1950's it was getting old and outdated due to the use of non-NATO ammunition and the questionable en-bloc clips so it was to be replaced. Thus the army put out a contract for a new semi and fully-automatic rifle in the new, lighter caliber. Enter Armalite, a skeleton-crew of 9 people headed by Eugene Stoner that designed something genuinely new. It didn't have a traditional rifle stock. Rather it had the pistol grip, upper-and-lower layout with pretty much all the characteristics we're familiar with seeing on the M16 series. The most notable differences being the materials that the stock and grips were made of, as well as a charging handle inside the carrying handle which more closely resembles that of the FAMAS. But the real advantage was weight. For a 7.62 NATO battle rifle it only weighed in at roughly 8 pounds or so. This was due to extensive use of polymers in the grips as well as aluminum everywhere else. It worked great too, functioning quite reliably during testing in spite of the foibles inherent to the direct impingement system. It truly seemed as though it was about to beat the FAL and T44. But then disaster. During a torture test the barrel on one of the rifles failed and ruptured. Even if it was in the lead before, this major setback hurt it enough that the heavier T44 was adopted as the M14 instead. Having lost this contract ArmaLite set upon developing newer and better things, selling the rights to produce this rifle to a Dutch company called AI (Artillerie Inrichtingen). Over the years this company managed to score sales of a couple thousand such rifles with Hollywood, Sudan and Portugal. Most were select-fire military versions although a couple semi-automatic civilian variants were made as well. Throughout the late 50's and 60's this gun saw use in many conflict zones, particularly colonial scuffles in Africa. There it earned a reputation as en effective and more notably very light rifle. Those that managed to get their hands on them, praised them. But not that many did. Even if Portugal, Sudan, Cuba, Indonesia, Italy and Burma (back when it was Burma) bought them they only did so in limited numbers. In all only 10,000 such rifles were ever made by AI. Well in that case why is it on the list if so few were made? When the ArmaLite name was bought up by Mark Westrom in 1995 he brought new life into a brand which had essentially not designed or even built any guns since the 1970's. As well as starting production of various civilian 5.56 Ar-15s that the company is more well-known for he put the AR-10 back in production as well. This line of civilian rifles is still around today and more popular than ever. They are offered in both classic variations and setups which are more designed for the marksman. But while ArmaLite holds the trademark for the AR-10, they aren't the only ones making them. There is the DPMS LR-308, the RRA LAR-8, OA-10, SR-25 and a million other .308 ARs that are essentially AR-15s scaled up to the bigger .308 NATO caliber.Therefore arguably, while ArmaLite fizzled out in the 1970's the AR-10 was never truly out of production since other gun companies kept making their own copies and variants of them from the moment that the patent expired. It does seem to be in the nature of this short-lived enterprise. They designed many unique and interesting firearms (AR 10, 15, 7, 18, etc.) and left the actual widespread manufacturing of them to everyone else.

What's a T44?