[QUOTE=DrMortician;16608949]Depends on the barrel length. If he gets a carbine barrel, then there'd really be some fireworks.
I still doubt anything could have a more annoying muzzle blast than my bushmaster pistol. My .454 casull isn't even 1/4 as bad, before I got the 7.5" model I had a 2.5" model and the bushmaster was still worse than it.[/QUOTE]
A chap I knew once sat next to someone who had a muzzle blast on a rifle that shot 300 Winchester. he described it as his right side of his face being forced onto the left it was that crazy.
If that was with a 300 Winchester I can't imagine what it must be like with a 7mm Rem Mag.
89)Lewis Gun
[img]http://world.guns.ru/machine/lewis-2.jpg[/img]
Although this gun is more famous for its service in the hands of British and Commonwealth troops it is actually an American design.
It was invented around the turn of the century by Colonel Isaac Newton Lewis of the US Army.
This weapon features a pan magazine which holds either 47 or 97 rounds which is respectable by any standard. It is removable so reloading is quick and easy (bulkiness of said pans notwithstanding). This concept would later influence the Russian DP. It was also a much lighter gun than the various Maxims used at the time, weighing in at around 30 pounds loaded. This isn't a light weapon, but it is much lighter than a freaking Maxim gun.
The innards consisted of a gas system that cycled a fully-automatic-only open-bolt action. The big distinctive feature is a weird return spring system in a hump in front of the pistol grip which functioned somewhat like a wind-up watch, only much faster. There is also a distinctive metal shroud around the barrel which funneled air into the back and out the front when the weapon was being fired, rather efficiently in fact. But it was bulky and often discarded to save weight.
Ironically while of American origin the American armed forces didn't want anything to do with it.
Lewis spent many years fighting with the head of the US Army Board of Ordnance who he had gotten into a political tiff with. Eventually Lewis gave up and set up shop in Belgium to market his gun in Europe. His company was called Armes Automatique Lewis. Pretty soon he found that unlike in the US his gun was actually quite appreciated. The biggest competitor was the Chauchat, but it way flimsier, less reliable and held less bullets even if it was cheaper and lighter. Soon Britain was license building this gun at the BSA (Birmingham Small Arms) factory.
They weren't alone. Savage had started making licensed copies back in the US for Air Force, Marine and Navy contracts. Russia ordered 10,000 from Britain. Belgium bought up a bunch for their army too. As did all the Commonwealth nations such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Other nations such as Italy and even France bought several. Eventually Japan would make their own version as well.
Of course the big proving ground for this new technology would be WW1. Here it was found that the Lewis had everything. Well ok, it wasn't exactly sprightly. But it worked great, it had a good magazine capacity and it didn't overheat too much. Many were used on vehicle or aircraft mounts, even then often without the jacket to save weight. The AEF soldiers who carried Chauchats regretted the Board of Ordnance's decision to not buy this design and the few US soldiers who managed to get their hands on 30.06 Lewis guns prized them.
It remained in service into WW2 as well. The Commonwealth forces mostly relegated it to vehicle mounts due to the lighter BREN but it still did its job. Many American Lewis guns ended up in Britain being used as AA guns. Interestingly, they were still chambered in 30.06 and those versions had red bands around the jacket to indicate the fact that they used non-standard ammunition. Original .303 versions still saw much use on the front lines.
By that time however the age of these weapons was beginning to show. Many of the countries that used them adopted lighter guns in new NATO-pattern ammunition after the war ended so the Lewis guns became obsolete. They still saw use in brush wars for many years but with lighter, more effective guns available that use more common ammunition they only make sparse appearances on today's battlefields.
But the Lewis did it's job and it did it admirably. It had the magazine capacity to lay down the law and the reliability to chew through that huge pan. In all, more than a million were made and while they don't see as much use as they used to they still pop up here and there to this day.
I found a mistake, you said lake 1900's you mean early?
[QUOTE=Dr Pepper;16614359]I found a mistake, you said lake 1900's you mean early?[/QUOTE]
I meant 1900-1910 but I see what you mean, fixing it now.
snip
I personally think an article of the SCAR program would be nice.
Or one about the Robinson XCR. Too much internet bullshit about that gun being shit when it's an AK that can shoot as accurate as an M16 with ergos from the FAL.
That's a good combo.
Oh what the fuck, I'll write it.
[img]http://www.robarm.com/XCR-Tan-Loaded.gif[/img]
The Robinson XCR is really more of a weapon that is known in civilian circles, and is quite well known on gun forums and the like. The Robinson XCR is really an amalgamation of multiple firearm designs, using a modified AKM bolt and operation system, which is quite fuckin' reliable, if you can recall how durable the AK is. It uses a FAL style method of field stripping, and also borrows the FAL's charging handle. From the M16, it borrows the magazine release and magazine, and also the barrel extension. The trigger, which is now a 4.5lb 2-stage trigger, is standard on all XCRs, and resembles the M16 trigger.
The XCR is fantastic, but since no military uses it (sounds like the AR-18), it's really only popular with civs. It's got rails, so the tacticool people can hang too much shit off of it, it's light, durable, and accurate. With a chrome barrel, it can achieve groups of an inch at 100 yards. That's basically having all the holes touching.
The entire design has been proven already, with the rifle being able to go for around 10k rounds with just lubing, no cleaning. Main complaints are just that some bolts get loose when not completely tightened. In general it's a fine gun, with little problems.
It's basically the gun the SCAR and ACR should be, less plastic, more reliable, more durable, more squaddy-proof. It's one of the few Gen3 carbine designs that don't cost 5k off of Gunbroker, and it's a damn good gun. The company keeps a test mule, that has gone over 300k rounds, only need new recoil buffers(So the rifle doesn't get battered on high gas settings.).
So the gun is a damn good one. Does everything the SCAR does and more. You can switch to AK ammo (7.62x39), 6.8SPC, and maybe 6.5 Grendel, some day. A weapon that has good design but no one seems to talk about it.
ZOMG, he be stealing ur thread.
Smash him.
[QUOTE=wystan;16615872]ZOMG, he be stealing ur thread.
Smash him.[/QUOTE]
Mah articles are tech-nerdy.
That and Bean-O doesn't seem to write much about civ-only guns. Except the Mini-14 and 10/22, which everyone and their mum has.
We need walking granades
Or ground torpedoes
The reason I'm not doing the XCR or SCAR is because they are too new. I prefer to write about guns that have not only been combat proven, but have some history behind them and something like the XCR simply hadn't been around long enough to have that.
I also do civilian weapons, probably not enough though. To be fair that's because many civilian firearms are based off military guns so I just write up a footnote on civilian variants while discussing the original military weapon. (Like Mosins ending up in the hands of civilians for instance, or civilian AR-15s)
[QUOTE=Joxalot;16616838]We need walking granades
Or ground torpedoes[/QUOTE]
Ground torpedoes? Do you mean bunker busters? Those things are bombs, not... torpedoes.
I assume that people can see a massive pile of ground being uplifted and they can run away in time.
Walking grenades, well... let's say that's stupid.
No, I mean ground torpedoes, it would be awesome
Walking granades sound stupid, but imagine the strategic value when your dealing with large trenches or caves systems. It size could be carried and deployed by a normal soldier, without having to call special air strike
It would be like a reckon drone, but jihad
[QUOTE=Joxalot;16617308]No, I mean ground torpedoes, it would be awesome
Walking granades sound stupid, but imagine the strategic value when your dealing with large trenches or caves systems. It size could be carried and deployed by a normal soldier, without having to call special air strike
It would be like a reckon drone, but jihad[/QUOTE]
I think the game fracture tried to do that. It didn't work.
Not saying that we should trust games at all in anyway when it comes to weaponry.
We NEVER should trust games when we talk about weapons
Imagine a fatman launcher irl... Impossible
[QUOTE=Joxalot;16617348]We NEVER should trust games when we talk about weapons
Imagine a fatman launched irl... Impossible[/QUOTE]
What about the MIRV? It fires 8 at once. Don't even try and think about that.
Hahaha... That would be hilarious
Yes :3:
[editline]01:52AM[/editline]
Talk about new unusual tech prototypes as special feature
The Davey Crockett recoilless rifle is actually astoundingly close to the fatman.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)[/url]
The only difference is the fact that the Fatman launcher is a catapult
[QUOTE=Bean-O;16617155]The reason I'm not doing the XCR or SCAR is because they are too new. I prefer to write about guns that have not only been combat proven, but have some history behind them and something like the XCR simply hadn't been around long enough to have that.
I also do civilian weapons, probably not enough though. To be fair that's because many civilian firearms are based off military guns so I just write up a footnote on civilian variants while discussing the original military weapon. (Like Mosins ending up in the hands of civilians for instance, or civilian AR-15s)[/QUOTE]
True, they are too new to prove themselves "fantastic," but the design obviously shows a very robust weapon.
The SCAR and ACR are knucklegrinders with the charging handle. The XCR has a properly placed one that doesn't reciprocate, a very good thing since reports of sore thumbs from shooting the SCAR are already known.
The XCR is somewhat like the SIG 550, but put into the 21st century.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;16617895]True, they are too new to prove themselves "fantastic," but the design obviously shows a very robust weapon.
The SCAR and ACR are knucklegrinders with the charging handle. The XCR has a properly placed one that doesn't reciprocate, a very good thing since reports of sore thumbs from shooting the SCAR are already known.
The XCR is somewhat like the SIG 550, but put into the 21st century.[/QUOTE]
But they haven't been put through to battle use though, and that's where you decide how good it is.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;16617895]True, they are too new to prove themselves "fantastic," but the design obviously shows a very robust weapon.
The SCAR and ACR are knucklegrinders with the charging handle. The XCR has a properly placed one that doesn't reciprocate, a very good thing since reports of sore thumbs from shooting the SCAR are already known.
The XCR is somewhat like the SIG 550, but put into the 21st century.[/QUOTE]
As soon as it gets issued to military and survives 20+ years in multiple theaters, it'll earn a spot here.
Until then it's just some concept weapon that hasn't been utilized.
If we want to talk about a civilian range queen, my AR15 shoots sub MOA and has never jammed once in the lifetime of the firearm even though it's a DI gun. Except it isn't just a range queen, it's a proven design that's been around for decades and still serves as the military's main service rifle.
Hey Bean-O, I just checked the OP, and it stops listed the weapons at 59. Could you update it all the way to the Lewis Gun?
So, PPS-43?
[QUOTE=40kplayer;16646162]Hey Bean-O, I just checked the OP, and it stops listed the weapons at 59. Could you update it all the way to the Lewis Gun?[/QUOTE]
Everything else is on the front page along with that list.
[QUOTE=Kman1;16647013]So, PPS-43?[/QUOTE]
Could do it another day.
I wrote this yesterday but the thread was dead so I didn't want to bump it.
90)Colt 1905/1908 Hammerless.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Colt_Model_1908_Pocket_Hamerless_AdamsGuns_1783.jpg[/img]
This gun was designed by John Browning as a development of his concept for a semi-automatic pistol with a slide, this time the license to build it went to Colt rather than FN which mass-produced the first such gun in 1900.
Contrary to this weapons title it isn't actually hammerless. The hammer is internal in order to avoid snagging when the weapon is drawn which is an ideal trait for such a compact weapon since its small size makes it a decent concealable firearm. Overall the entire concept has been refined and simplified. The 1903 and 1908 more closely resemble more modern handguns such as the model 1911 which, indeed, is a further development of this very design.
You may be wondering what the difference is between the two. Originally the 1903 was chambered in the same .32 ACP bullet as the FN M1900 which predated it, but 5 years later Colt introduced the .380 ACP bullet which is still relatively popular today. The 1903 was updated and rechambered to this caliber, resulting in the model 1908 although there are .380 ACP 1903s. All of these handguns were collectively marketed as the "Colt Pocket Hammerless".
Well ok, now we have a handgun that closer to what we are familiar with today? Why is it so special?
To answer this question, you need only look at the kind of characters who used them. It was released just in time for the roaring twenties where it proved itself to be an ideal weapon in the hands of various gangsters. Al Capone never went anywhere without one tucked in his jacket. Bonnie used one to bust Clyde out of jail. That and millions of other crooks used them for various nefarious deeds. Just as impressively it was issued to officers for a few years before and even after the 1911 was adopted. General Patton had one with three and later four starts set in the grips although he never used it much. Future president Ike Eisenhower was issued one as well. Bradley and Marshall each carried one too.
But this is only part of the picture. The lionshare of sales supplied various civilians who just wanted a small, simple and not too expensive gun with which to protect themselves. During its production life from 1903 to 1945 over half a million were sold. The purpose they served varied, but the gun proved itself to be a reliable forerunner to what would become arguably the greatest handgun ever made.
Damn this makes me want a decent pistol even more. I would love a 1911, or maybe a springfield XD.
PPS-43.
doit
Huh what's so fantastic about the PPS-43 other than the fact that they made it out of scrap and bits of old PPSh?
[QUOTE=angelangel;16662943]Huh what's so fantastic about the PPS-43 other than the fact that they made it out of scrap and bits of old PPSh?[/QUOTE]
Sarcasm?
We can only hope.
It isn't a bad design and it isn't uncommon.
But I already wrote an article today, that is a set limit.
If this thread is still on the first page tomorrow I can do the '43. But it has been slowing down a lot lately.
That little gun is very cute, what disadvantages come from an internal hammer?
I imagine it makes cleaning more complicated, but wouldn't it reduce the chance of jamming as less of the workings are exposed?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
