[QUOTE=Deadoon v.2;17242684]Yes but that isn't what they were talking about, he specifically bolded magazine for no apparent reason.[/QUOTE]
Ah, k.
Am i right when i say that a close range Ma' Duce or Minigun will FCUK U UP!?
115)M3 "Grease Gun"
[img]http://world.guns.ru/smg/m3_gg1.jpg[/img]
Before the US entered WW2 the US Ordinance Corps were investigating the effectiveness of various submachine guns being used. They found that while significantly cheaper than the highly expensive Thompson design, these guns were only marginally less effective. Even the STEN. They then set a requirement for a new subgun that could be converted from .45 ACP to 9mm in the field, that was just as cheap as the STEN design and preferably perform a lot better.
Two designers named George Hyde and Frederick Sampson who worked for Inland (a division of GM that at would also manufacture M1 carbines later in the war) cobbled up just such a design relatively quickly. It would later become known as the M3.
This weapon was a simple open-bolt gun that featured very simplistic production throughout. Everything that could be made of stamped steel was made of stamped steel. The only things that weren't were the barrel, bolt and firing mechanism. At one point there was a safety, but it was nixed during development. Instead there is a little sear in the dust cover that blocks the bolt from moving when the cover is closed. The cocking handle was a weird crank in front of the trigger assembly you had to pull back. Another distinctive feature was a very heavy bolt which gave the gun a distinctively slow rate of fire, roughly 300-400 RPM, allowing it to be quite controllable. The stock was a simple wire and the sights were non-adjustable, fixed to 100 yards.
But the really nice feature was an extra barrel, bolt and magazine well adapter for 9x19mm that took STEN and MP-40 magazines allowing this gun to be converted from .45 to 9mm in the field. All this cost the US government 20$ per gun which is a bargain considering that the two most expensive components (the bolt and barrel) had to be built twice with each gun.
Overall this gun was designed to be disposable. Should any parts wear out and stop working, chuck it and get another. This approach was scrapped early on due to an overall shortage of subguns available. The soldiers in the field dubbed it the "grease Gun" due to its resemblance to a tool used by mechanics to oil vehicles and other heavy machinery. The design itself (predictably) had a number of flaws. The biggest of which was safety, with the gun cocked and locked with the latch closed, if you dropped it the latch could pop open and the gun could discharge. Accidental discharge was a problem that plagued the M3 throughout its service. In addition the .45 magazines were a pain to load and the cocking handle sucked.
The latter problem would be addressed in 1944 with an update to the M3a1. This gun had total part commonality with its predecessor except for the bolt, dust cover and receiver. The bolt had a simpler built-in cocking handle. Another change was the dust cover which had to be elongated to accommodate the new cocking handle the receiver had to be altered to accommodate the larger dust cover. Overall the new gun was cheaper and a bit more reliable. When many M3s were modified into M3a1s the crank system was simply chucked and shipped back to the US as scrap metal.
As well as the new M3a1 variant, the OSS asked and received 1,000 M3s that were internally silenced although these guns are very rare today as only a thousand were made, compared to 600,000 normal M3s. Even more M3a1s would be manufactured during the Korean War. The best part is this: Guess when the US army stopped using them.
I'll give you some time.
Odds are you are probably wrong since you would have figured that like all other WW2 era designs it was obsolete by the time WW2 ended and was dropped shortly after the Korean War. You would be partially wrong. The US army stopped using them in large numbers after Korea, but they remained in service with tank crews up until the 1990s. It wasn't until the .45 ACP cartridge was forced out of service by NATO that they began seeking a replacement. When large quantities were retired circa the 1980's many were sold on the US class 3 weapons market, where they still circulate today at inflated prices.
In fact the last reported sighting of these guns in US hands would have been truck drivers hauling them around during the Gulf War. This is on top of various agencies such as the CIA that used leftover M3A1s during the 1970's and 1980's.
By that point the US wasn't the only country that had manufactured them. China made a copy called the Type 36 which in an ironic twist was used against the Americans in Korea. Argentina also made 9x19mm copies for a time. On top of all that numerous other nations such as South Korea, South Vietnam, Cambodia, the Philippines and Japan's JSDF received surplus M3A1s after they were withdrawn from service. Granted, nobody uses them today.
[QUOTE=Bean-O;17246937]115)M3 "Grease Gun"
[img]http://world.guns.ru/smg/m3_gg1.jpg[/img]
Before the US entered WW2 the US Ordinance Corps were investigating the effectiveness of various submachine guns being used. They found that while significantly cheaper than the highly expensive Thompson design, these guns were only marginally less effective. Even the STEN. They then set a requirement for a new subgun that could be converted from .45 ACP to 9mm in the field, that was just as cheap as the STEN design and preferably perform a lot better.
Two designers named George Hyde and Frederick Sampson who worked for Inland (a division of GM that at would also manufacture M1 carbines later in the war) cobbled up just such a design relatively quickly. It would later become known as the M3.
This weapon was a simple open-bolt gun that featured very simplistic production throughout. Everything that could be made of stamped steel was made of stamped steel. The only things that weren't were the barrel, bolt and firing mechanism. At one point there was a safety, but it was nixed during development. Instead there is a little sear in the dust cover that blocks the bolt from moving when the cover is closed. The cocking handle was a weird crank in front of the trigger assembly you had to pull back. Another distinctive feature was a very heavy bolt which gave the gun a distinctively slow rate of fire, roughly 300-400 RPM, allowing it to be quite controllable. The stock was a simple wire and the sights were non-adjustable, fixed to 100 yards.
But the really nice feature was an extra barrel, bolt and magazine well adapter for 9x19mm that took STEN and MP-40 magazines allowing this gun to be converted from .45 to 9mm in the field. All this cost the US government 20$ per gun which is a bargain considering that the two most expensive components (the bolt and barrel) had to be built twice with each gun.
Overall this gun was designed to be disposable. Should any parts wear out and stop working, chuck it and get another. This approach was scrapped early on due to an overall shortage of subguns available. The soldiers in the field dubbed it the "grease Gun" due to its resemblance to a tool used by mechanics to oil vehicles and other heavy machinery. The design itself (predictably) had a number of flaws. The biggest of which was safety, with the gun cocked and locked with the latch closed, if you dropped it the latch could pop open and the gun could discharge. Accidental discharge was a problem that plagued the M3 throughout its service. In addition the .45 magazines were a pain to load and the cocking handle sucked.
The latter problem would be addressed in 1944 with an update to the M3a1. This gun had total part commonality with its predecessor except for the bolt, dust cover and receiver. The bolt had a simpler built-in cocking handle. Another change was the dust cover which had to be elongated to accommodate the new cocking handle the receiver had to be altered to accommodate the larger dust cover. Overall the new gun was cheaper and a bit more reliable. When many M3s were modified into M3a1s the crank system was simply chucked and shipped back to the US as scrap metal.
As well as the new M3a1 variant, the OSS asked and received 1,000 M3s that were internally silenced although these guns are very rare today as only a thousand were made, compared to 600,000 normal M3s. Even more M3a1s would be manufactured during the Korean War. The best part is this: Guess when the US army stopped using them.
I'll give you some time.
Odds are you are probably wrong since you would have figured that like all other WW2 era designs it was obsolete by the time WW2 ended and was dropped shortly after the Korean War. You would be partially wrong. The US army stopped using them in large numbers after Korea, but they remained in service with tank crews up until the 1990s. It wasn't until the .45 ACP cartridge was forced out of service by NATO that they began seeking a replacement. When large quantities were retired circa the 1980's many were sold on the US class 3 weapons market, where they still circulate today at inflated prices.
In fact the last reported sighting of these guns in US hands would have been truck drivers hauling them around during the Gulf War. This is on top of various agencies such as the CIA that used leftover M3A1s during the 1970's and 1980's.
By that point the US wasn't the only country that had manufactured them. China made a copy called the Type 36 which in an ironic twist was used against the Americans in Korea. Argentina also made 9x19mm copies for a time. On top of all that numerous other nations such as South Korea, South Vietnam, Cambodia, the Philippines and Japan's JSDF received surplus M3A1s after they were withdrawn from service. Granted, nobody uses them today.[/QUOTE]
About damn time!
God damnit Karskin, if it's a post above yours, no need to page stretch and quote it! YOU'RE AN 05'ER. YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
Great article on the Grease Gun. Strange thing, I thought that you did it 70+ articles ago, so I never thought about requesting it.
[QUOTE=Bean-O;17206680]You see Billy, in a video game the circumstances surrounding firearm acquisition can be altered to make any character or group of characters use any weapon and the performance characteristics can be altered in any way imaginable.
This is possible because video games are not solidly grounded in reality and when it comes down to it they could have 5 year olds dual-wielding miniguns that fire lasers. Therefore while a small, underfunded guerrilla faction isn't all that likely to be able to purchase such a weapon in reality, in the game world everyone can have one.[/QUOTE]
I'd imagine a .50 cal or an old Russian 14.5mm MG would be on the trucks, not a 40mm amirite?
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;17268504]I'd imagine a .50 cal or an old Russian 14.5mm MG would be on the trucks, not a 40mm amirite?[/QUOTE]
Most likely, but that doesn't mean that an MK19 would be impossible to find under those circumstances, they just wouldn't be astoundingly common.
Also I'm out of ideas again. In general I don't see this thread lasting much longer, but we'll see how it goes.
The cool thing is that the Navy SEALS got some of the silenced grease guns and used them for silent ambushes and takedowns. They gave them to the new guys on the teams.
116)Krag-Jørgensen
[img]http://www.cruffler.com/NorwegianKrag.jpg[/img]
Back in the 1880s repeating rifles, particularly bolt-actions that fired smokeless self-contained cartridges were sweeping the battlefields. They were much faster to shoot than the bulky black powder single-shots that preceded them. Naturally, like all of its European neighbors Norway saw fit to develop its own, courtesy of Ole Herman Johannes Krag and Erik Jørgensen (hence the name).
Design wise the Krag does stand out among bolt-actions. Largely due to the obtuse magazine design. There is a flap on the right, you open it, insert 5 rounds and close the flap which then pushes those 5 rounds up into the breech. It is a strange and complex system, but not particularly prone to malfunctions. In fact it has an advantage over more conventional magazines in that it is somewhat faster to reload. Another notable advantage is that the action is very smooth which would help its popularity with civilians later on.
Norway was actually not the first country to adopt it since at the time they were experimenting with a different design. That would be the Danish. They were looking to adopt a new bolt-action circa 1884, the Krag-Jørgensen was designed around that time and subsequently adopted by Denmark in 1889 in 8x58mmR. It wasn't until the 1890s that this design saw some serious success.
The US was next in adopting the Krag-Jørgensen design in 1892 followed by its native Norway in 1894. (using 30-40 Krag and 6.5x55mm respectively) As is commonly known the former of the two would go on to make the largest amount of rifles. In fact it is from the American contract that this design got most of its notoriety. Although the black powder designation (30-40) has led some to believe that it was originally a black powder cartridge, much like the 30-30 Winchester this isn't the case. Springfield license built this design all the way up until 1904. 500,000 of these rifles saw the US through the Spanish-American War, the Philippines and the Boxer Rebellion.
But by the Spanish-American War a problem became evident. I came out on the winning end of that conflict, but not by its own merits. The 30-40 cartridge was simply not as powerful as other designs of the time. It isn't that the guns action is weak. In fact some were manufactured in 30.06 and 7.62 NATO for civilians after WW2 although this required a redesign of the bolt to include an additional locking lug. But at the time the only viable solution for the US was to replace the entire design, which resulted in the Springfield 1903.
Still, that didn't mean this gun ceased being useful. Numerous such rifles found their way into the hands of South African Boers who were fighting the British. During WW2 some Chinese forces used surplus Krags. Norway and Denmark used them as service rifles and later sniper rifles to a degree as well. After being taken over by Germany in 1940 the Norwegian factories were forced to manufacture what would be called "bastard" rifles for the Germans. It was the same design in the same caliber but modified to closer meet German specs by having a shorter profile and a sight hood. Only a few thousand such rifles were made out of mismatched, damaged, used parts due to intentionally slow production and sabotage.
By war's end and with the founding of NATO which specified a standard caliber it seemed that the Jørgensen was finally obsolete. It was only briefly produced for civilians after the war (sometimes with double lugs in more powerful calibers, as mentioned above). Soon enough it was withdrawn from production altogether.
Today with roughly 3/4 of a million Krag-Jørgensen rifles in existence it isn't an amazingly rare firearm, although most are antiques. It is sought after by sportsmen for its exceptionally smooth action and respectable accuracy as well as collectors for its rich history.
Intresting rifle... Oddly I think I saw a gun sorta like this in my uncles house as a kid... not so sure now, but it looked really similar... Anyway nice article Bean-O.
I love the Greasue gun for some reason. It seems so crude and over the top cheap.
What about the stoner 63?
I suggested that a while back, don't know if its on Bean-o's list of to do's.
I believe it was the first modular weapon series, should have an article on modular weapons at the very least, like the AUG, Stoner, etc.
[QUOTE=Darkhorse01;17287347]I suggested that a while back, don't know if its on Bean-o's list of to do's.
I believe it was the first modular weapon series, should have an article on modular weapons at the very least, like the AUG, Stoner, etc.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't call the AUG a modular weapon system....
You can change the barrels out quickly, but that's about it.
You can change the barrels and receiver to turn the rifle into a 9mm SMG, or a 5.56 fletchette firing assault rifle , LMG, subcarbine or carbine. As well as being able to change the mechanism over so the rifle can be used by both handed shooters.
That's more modular than the Stoner which I think is modular. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
[QUOTE=Darkhorse01;17287765]You can change the barrels and receiver to turn the rifle into a 9mm SMG, or a 5.56 fletchette firing assault rifle , LMG, subcarbine or carbine. As well as being able to change the mechanism over so the rifle can be used by both handed shooters.
That's more modular than the Stoner which I think is modular. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)[/QUOTE]
You have to change out the receiver. That's not very modular, the M4 is a shitload more modular.
Stoner 63 was one of the first 5.56 lmgs, heck probably the first. About 20 years before the current SAW was introduced
Yes, but did the '63 ever catch on?
I don't know that it was ever used in any substantial numbers, which is a shame since it was such an interesting design.
[QUOTE=Bean-O;17293636]Yes, but did the '63 ever catch on?
[/QUOTE]
Not really. Saw some use in the Navy SEAL teams in South East Asia/Vietnam and small numbers passed the hands of Australian SASR around the same time, but that was about it.
If you are running out of ideas for an article, then do article about WW1/WW2 era rifle grenades.
Weren't they grandfathers of underbarrel grenade launchers?
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/M1_Garand_rifgren-shooting_line.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=zenith777;17301547]If you are running out of ideas for an article, then do article about WW1/WW2 era rifle grenades.
Weren't they grandfathers of underbarrel grenade launchers?
Image[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say the grandfathers, more like the inspiration.
With rifle grenades you had to chamber a special round, attach the adaptor, insert the grenade, pull the pin and fire. The M16 had rifle grenades which had rods which would be inserted into the barrel, I think, but that was liable to damage the weapon Now grenade launchers function more or less like guns with bigger bullets.
[b]Special Edition 8:[/b] The history of rifle grenades.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/M1_Garand_rifgren-shooting_line.jpg[/img]
While the exact origins of rifle grenades are uncertain the concept has been around about as long as firearms have. By simply having a gun that had a wider bore you could lob bigger projectiles. Sometimes these projectiles would have been early grenades. But these weapons functioned more or less like their more conventional counterparts, only they were heavier and much more dangerous to operate.
It wasn't until about the turn of the century that this ancient concept would have been revised in what became the first modern rifle grenade. It was the brainchild of the Japanese who in 1905 were struggling with the Siege of Port Arthur (nowadays known as Dalian, China). Such portable artillery proved effective however it was found that recoil was too great to fire it from the shoulder so the rifle stock was often rested on the ground. These various experiments inspired the Spanish and later the French who perfected them in WW1.
During that conflict the French had what was called the V-B. It was a cup adapter for their 8mm rifles that fitted on the front of the barrel. You would then insert one of the projectiles (which had a hole in the middle) and fire the thing without using any blank cartridges. The bullet passed through the grenade and the muzzle blast propelled it a maximum of 200 or so yards. Because it didn't require blank cartridges it was a bit faster to use than subsequent designs, but the range was limited and a version modernized for American use was a disaster.
Still, this concept inspired all of the major players of that conflict prompting similar modifications. Often with numerous different projectiles to take advantage of the launchers versatility. Often a timed fragmentation projectile and a HEAT shell that detonated on impact meant for dealing with armored vehicles. Germany made for the K98, Japan continued development on the old concept, resulting in a very modular and universal spigot grenade system. Italy adopted something similar for their Carcano rifles.
America developed a different design in 1941 that used an attachment to 1903 and 1917 rifles known as the "Babbitt" grenade after its creator. This version was basically a snap-on barrel extension. You slid an elongated, rocket-shaped projectile over the end and used blanks to propel it. One was made for the M-1 carbine, but was prone to severe recoil and the M-1 Garand variant had to cut off the gas system. This made the Springfield 1903 and 1917 the preferred weapon in the field for lobbing these grenades.
By the time Vietnam rolled around the concept of the rifle grenade was used by almost every country on earth. But it wasn't perfect. The biggest problem is that when you have the grenade and you are aiming at something you can't use your gun there and then. If an enemy pops out of the bushes you are more or less screwed. It was also a pain in the butt to attach and remove the adapter from the gun. Overall an effective but bulky and time consuming approach that led to the development of the M76 and subsequently under barrel launchers which are also far more accurate. So that means no one uses rifle grenades today, right?
Wrong.
They still have a lot of advantages over the older system. For one thing the newer launchers incorporate the exterior of the barrel and flash suppressor, thus not requiring any adapter (For example the Yugo SKS and FAMAS). Because the adapter (again, assuming there is one) isn't a complete weapon system the whole deal is significantly lighter. It also helps ease some headaches since training grenades can be reused multiple times. They can also fire a wider variety of projectiles, which is why they are still in widespread use today.
[IMG]http://i32.tinypic.com/a2r7ls.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Bean-O;17277255]116)Krag-Jørgensen
[img]http://www.cruffler.com/NorwegianKrag.jpg[/img]
-snip-[/QUOTE]
I fucking love mine! It's from 1895 and I still use it in competetional shooting (but everything except the reciever is swaped out with newer parts though)
Dear god, why do you know all this info
Have you done the Barrett M107? Stupid question propably.
[QUOTE=doommarine23;17304010]Dear god, why do you know all this info[/QUOTE]
I don't know everything.
The info in these articles does include a substantial amount of knowledge that I posses, but most of the content comes from research I get from various books I have. Sometimes internet sources. I occasionally use Wikipedia to copy/paste names that I can't hope to spell.
Like Krag-Jørgensen =D
I have a weapons encyclopedia that has a picture of a French Marine holding a FAMAS with a rifle grenade loaded. Relevant but pointless information, I know.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
