[QUOTE=Oecleus;17123603]Are trauma plates inserted in the front or in the rear of the vest?[/QUOTE]I thought they were on both.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;17123618]I thought they were on both.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, but I was thinking of how a pistol round would shatter if it couldn't break the plate if it was in the front. The shattering could fling shrapnel up at your face.
[QUOTE=Bean-O;17121535]Already did it.
Flip through part 1, it's #54.[/QUOTE]
wait. what page is it on?
[QUOTE=camper182;17123690]wait. what page is it on?[/QUOTE]
Should only take you about 10 seconds to find, click on a random page, scroll to wall of text, look at number, go forward or backward.
[QUOTE=camper182;17123690]wait. what page is it on?[/QUOTE]It's near the end of the old thread:
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=15715402&postcount=1914[/url]
[QUOTE=Oecleus;17123641]I don't know, but I was thinking of how a pistol round would shatter if it couldn't break the plate if it was in the front. The shattering could fling shrapnel up at your face.[/QUOTE]
It would be inside the kevlar by then.
[QUOTE=lintz;17125037]It would be inside the kevlar by then.[/QUOTE]
The plate holder is made of kevlar?
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;17123787]It's near the end of the old thread:
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=15715402&postcount=1914[/url][/QUOTE]
Thanks. good read.
i fired the FNC before and immediatly fell in love with it. also because its belgian like me, lol.
[QUOTE=camper182;17126114]Thanks. good read.
i fired the FNC before and immediatly fell in love with it. also because its belgian like me, lol.[/QUOTE]
the belgians some pretty good waffles too.
lol. whenever people say anything about belgium they mention waffles, beer and fabrique national. thats because there is nothing else here.
You don't have to search through the entire thread to find it, that's why I move everything to the front page.
109)STG-44
[img]http://world.guns.ru/assault/mp44-2.jpg[/img]
While this wasn't a very good design and it wasn't as widely used as people tend to think there is little denying that it was revolutionary. Much like the French Chauchat (although nowhere near as bad) I would say that while this design had flaws, some of them serious, the concept behind it went on to be highly influential for future designs.
Way back in 1942 the German command put out a contract for the various firearm designers to make something between a submachine gun and a battle rifle so that they could replace the two with one design. Back in the 1930's they began experimenting with intermediate cartridges and they came up with the 7.92x33mm (AKA 8mm Kurz) bullet. The gun that was to fire this bullet was supposed to be accurate out to about 600 yards. German designer Hugo Schmeisser (who had worked on previous SMG designs) made a design for this contract while working for C. G. Haenel Waffen und Fahrradfabrik in 1942.
In 1943 various modifications of this weapon were made. For one thing it was changed to a closed bolt, rather than open in order to help with the accuracy which as it turned out was nowhere near good enough for shooting at 600 yards. The ammunition simply wasn't capable of having that kind of reach. Still, this gun was put in production that year as the MP-43. By 1944 about 10,000 were made and they were all renamed to MP-44 for some complicated bureaucratic reason (there is no real difference between the MP-43 and 44).
The entire idea was to take a rifle and cross it with a submachine gun. It was to fire a much smaller rifle bullet that was far more controllable in fully-automatic fire than, say, 8mm Mauser. The diameter of the round was kept the same for the same reason the soviets made all of their calibers identical. They didn't want to spend the extra money on getting new equipment to machine barrels of a different diameter, not when the same diameter worked fine. In the field, while not as accurate or powerful as a Mauser 98 it had significantly a greater rate of fire which helped a lot since most firefights happened within 300 yards anyway. But since the MP-40 is only good out to about 100 yards, even though the MP-44 wasn't as controllable or light it was still better since it had more range. It could outperform a battle rifle at close range and a subgun at long range.
Upon hearing this, Hitler himself requested that production of this gun cease immediately. He had carried the Mauser 98 into WW1 and he didn't want anything replacing it. Because this approach better suited the squad tactics used by the German army at the time, this gun was found to be highly effective in the field. After glowing reports of this weapons effectiveness reached Berlin from the front lines Hitler reportedly changed his mind and allowed the production and implementation of this design to resume. He even reportedly came up with a new name, the "Sturmgewehr" or "storm rifle". While it isn't likely that this name was really Hitler's brainchild it stuck, eventually becoming the name of a whole new class of small arms, the "Assault Rifle".
While the idea behind the Stg 44 made it very useful and effective in the field. The design was actually quite bad. In typical German fashion the workings were needlessly overcomplicated and prone to failure. This gun worked wonders when it was actually shooting. One major problem was that it was highly fragile. If dropped the complex feed system could break, rendering the gun useless.
Because it was introduced so late in the war the factories that built them had to cut corners which didn't help at all. This doesn't even mention that the gun was still very heavy and difficult to control. Ultimately by war's end less than 1/2 million were made. Not a small number but given the size of this conflict it was too little, too late.
After the war ended many ended up falling in Russian hands. It is widely believed that the design was directly copied, creating the AK-47. But that is not true. Only the basic idea behind it along with some of the components were used. In fact the 7.62x39mm round is little more than the 8mmK bullet narrowed down for .30 caliber because the Soviets still wanted the bore diameter of all their guns to be the same.
There is however another design, the VZ 58 which while it may not resemble the Stg-44 aesthetically is essentially a modernized, improved copy in the aforementioned 7.62 caliber. The Spanish CETME which is the forerunner to the G3 series is also a derivative of the Stg. On top of that surplus Sturmgewehrs ended up popping up in war zones here and there. Some were even recovered from various terrorist organizations in Afghanistan.
The true legacy of this design is by no means in its copies. It is in the idea behind it that made it so effective in spite of its flaws. The idea of select-fire rifles in an intermediate rifle bullet as the standard issue arm of all troops has since then become the small arms doctrine used by just about every country on earth since it works so much better for the more mobile, up-close and personal battles fought throughout the latter half of the 20th century and most likely for the rest of the 21st as well.
If i see a webley in a shop what's the price i should be aiming for most to get? as i love the webley to death, also are there any downsides to it?
[QUOTE=Deathbucket;17129948]If i see a webley in a shop what's the price i should be aiming for most to get? as i love the webley to death, also are there any downsides to it?[/QUOTE]
What kind of Webley is it?
The only major problem I can think of is that .455 is a bit tough to come by.
MK VI, or whatever the .38 one is.
Bean-O you might want to add that the Cetme/G3 were roughly based off the STG44
[QUOTE=DrMortician;17092719]Since when does an AK47 use a puck for its gas system?
I believe an AK47 uses a piston and not a puck.
[editline]08:15PM[/editline]
It gets better, all my magpul stuff finally got in so I took a group shot of EVERYTHING.
[media]http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/9826/allgunsdrmortician.jpg[/media]
Magpul only made me wait 4 damned months to tell me they aren't producing anything in that color anymore due to lack of demand, then offered me that stock which currently isn't being sold due to massive back orders. It's really nice though, all magpul stuff is.[/QUOTE]
Lovely revolver! :clint:
[QUOTE=Bean-O;17128506]You don't have to search through the entire thread to find it, that's why I move everything to the front page.
109)STG-44
German designer Hugo Schmeisser (the guy who invented the MP-40) [/QUOTE]
This is actually a common misconception. Schmeisser had nothing to do with MP40 design or production. Schmeisser developed the MP18, whereas Erma designer Heinrich Vollmer did the MP40.
Other than that, great article :)
[QUOTE=Oecleus;17126108]The plate holder is made of kevlar?[/QUOTE]
No... I mean, the ceramic plate is held inside the kevlar vest, stitched into pockets.
How good would you say the Snake Charmer II is? I got one not too long ago, but haven't shot it yet.
Any info on the .408 round?
What would be a good gun to buy to start out with? I'm looking for something relatively cheap, preferably a rifle, but I really know nothing about guns.
10/22's are nice. What kind of purpose do you want it for?
Pretty much anything in .22LR is the usual recommendation since the ammo is cheap and there is next to no recoil whatsoever. The ammo is usually very abundant but because of the gun grabs it is next to impossible to find nowadays. All in all this is a pretty bad time to be getting into guns, everything is scarce and expensive because everyone is panicking.
Hey Bean-O, have you done the M40(A1, A3) yet?
[QUOTE=SKEEA;17148966]Hey Bean-O, have you done the M40(A1, A3) yet?[/QUOTE]
The M40 is just a Remington 700, it's already been done
[QUOTE=Bean-O;17128506]109)STG-44
[img]http://world.guns.ru/assault/mp44-2.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
You also talked about this weapon in your Weaboo Weaponry thread.
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=14181766&postcount=2284[/url]
[QUOTE=Comtochus;17149849]You also talked about this weapon in your Weaboo Weaponry thread.
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=14181766&postcount=2284[/url][/QUOTE]
That is a misconception article, the fantastic firearms article says why it was an important weapon.
There are a handful of guns that were discussed in the weeaboo weaponry thread because people either have vast misconceptions about them or think they were far more widely used than they really were. That doesn't necessarily mean the weapon in question was a total failure or that it sucks.
110)Winchester 1895.
[img]http://world.guns.ru/rifle/win95-1.jpg[/img]
When I covered the Winchester rifle series I simply didn't have space to mention this gun. In part the fact that it has its own article may be considered even more fitting because it embodies another total overhaul by Browning.
This time he took the Winchester action and made it stronger still, allowing it to chamber military cartridges such as 7.62x54mmR and .303 British. More importantly (and this is what sets it apart from other lever-action rifles) it has a magazine rather than a tube. This means that it can chamber spitzer-shaped bullets whereas with most lever-actions you need flat-nose or rounded-nose cartridges unless you want the tip of one puncturing the primer of the one in front of it, thus blowing the tube off.
Soon after its introduction various civilian sales were complimented with military contracts. The lever-action allowed this gun to be fired much faster than any bolt-action. The most prolific of these guns would have been the Russian version. Imperial Russia ordered 300,000 such rifles in 7.62x54mmR. In addition these guns were retrofitted to take stripper clips and mount a bayonet. About 250,000+ such rifles were delivered before the order was cut short by the client nation erupting in a civil war.
During the revolution it was found that while a faster gun to shoot and an accurate one at that the Winchester wasn't that much better than the native Nagant design. For one thing it wasn't as crude and therefore a bit difficult to build. It was also a pain in the butt to cycle the action while laying prone. Also, while durable, the action itself wasn't as soldier-proof as the armorers had hoped. Certainly not as simplistic as the competing Nagant design.
The British and American armies both adopted a handful of these rifles in .303 and 30-40 Krag respectively. While the soldiers in the field were happy with them neither nation had any real interest in making it a standard service rifle. A .30-06 version was made, but primarily for civilian sales.
While a 300,000+ contract is by no means a "failure" the major legacy would be the '95s relative success in the world of hunting. As well as the aforementioned military calibers (including quite a few surplus Russian 95s, some of which were never shipped overseas) the civilian variants became popular with hunters. Winchester even made their own calibers for it, .35 and .405 Winchester. One famous user, Theordore Roosevelt had a rifle in the latter caliber which he used to off lions.
Sadly it never caught on as widely as Winchester had hoped and production ceased in the 1930's with the onset of the Great Depression which instantly crippled the only market that this gun catered to. But in that relatively short production life quite a few were made (although exact figures tend to differ). Today they are not incredibly rare, but highly prized by collectors and shooters alike and demand a hefty price.
Bean-O, is the SCAR a good weapon?
Y/N
Good? Probably, it was made by FN, did well in testing and it has a lot of nifty features. But the only way to know if it is good or not is to wait to hear what the troops in the field think of it. Front line service is the final and most important test that any given military weapon must face.
Widespread? Not yet. It simply hadn't been around long enough to see much use yet.
Can it be in this thread? No, because it is not widespread yet.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
