What's your favorite weapon?

[Zach R.]

What's everybody's oppinion of the OICW?personnaly,I don't like it.It looks to be very large and bulky.And as i understand,very expensive.

[Seiyuuki]

THE DAMN OICW IS STILL A FREAKING PROTOTYPE!!! AND IT IS KNOWN THAT THE PRODUCTION VERSION WILL BE LIGHTER AND NOT AS BULKY AS IT SEEM RIGHT NOW...GIVE THE FREAKING THING A BREAK, IT STILL HAVE AT LEAST 2 MORE YEARS OF TESTING AND TWEAKINGS.

[Smoothie104]

The M14 family, followed closely by the FN FAL

[Zach R.]

Seu....how ever the hell you spell your name,give ME a break.You guys just need to lay off a chill out.And please turn off your caps lock.Nothing pisses me off more than that.But dude,seriously,it must weigh like what,15 pounds.And with that short barell,it's looks to be very unacurate.Yeah I know,it's still in development,but damn.I would rather keep the M4 in service for 20 more years.Yeah,yeah I know,you're all are gonna bitch about how the M4 is my favorite weapon,and how I don't like anything BUT the M4,and so on and so forth.Not true.I like the M4 because it is so VERSITILE.just PLEEEEASE,lay off,grab a pepsi,and chiiiill.

[budanski]

From what I've read, the OICW is not replacing the the M-16/M-4, rather, one specialized OICW gunner to a unit.

[StarvingStudent47]

Hard to compare. You have three assault rifle series, but then a support gun series and a submachine gun series. Not comparing apples and apples.

[Seiyuuki]

YOU ARE STILL JUDGING THE THING ON THE BASIC OF WHAT YOU KNOW AND WHAT YOU SEE...WHICH ISN'T EVEN THE FINISH PRODUCT!!!

YOU MAKE TOO MANY ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE CAPLOCK, YES, THE FACT THAT I'M USING CAPLOCK YOU CAN TELL MY EMOTIONAL STATE!!!...WHAT AN IDIOT

[Ichhabe]

I'm happy with my G-3...

[a. enders]

OF COURSE HE'S JUDGING THE THING BASED ON WHAT HE KNOWS EVEN THOUGH IT'S A PROTOTYPE!!THAT'S WHAT PROTOTYPES ARE FOR!!THEY'RE THERE TO PRESENT THE DEVICE AND TO WORK OUT ALL THE BUGS!!
HE'S JUST GIVING HIS OPINION!!!!!
PERSONALLY!I AGREE!IF IT'S TOO COMPLEX ITS WORTHLESS!!I'M SURE THE FINISHED PRODUCT WILL BE A VAST IMPROVEMENT!!BUT DON'T BITCH AT PEOPLE FOR THEIR OPINIONS ON SOMETHING THAT IS STILL IN THE TEST PHASE!!
PEOPLE ALWAYS BITCH ABOUT NEW PROCESSORS OR VIDEO CARDS THEN GO ON TO PRAISE THEM!!
GET THE WILD HAIR OUT OF YOUR ASS!!

[StarvingStudent47]

http://www.lamer.net/capslock.gif

[a. enders]

rofl

[He219]

One musn't forget the FNC(FN2000GL), Sig550+, HK33/53(G-3), Steyr Aug and M14 Series! woot

http://www.world.guns.ru/assault/as00-e.htm Check 'em out!

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/oicw_atd.jpg

Who says this thing is too big?

p-)
-He219

[Piccolo]

Zack, in terms of accuracy, the OICW really isn't much different then the M4. This is right from the mouth of a 101st Airborne soldier whom I know, who has tested the thing personaly. However, this does not indicate how powerfull the round is with the OICW's 10 inch barrel. Even so, the under part of the weapon is basicaly for those 'oh-****!' scenareos, where you're ambushed or something along those lines.

[Registration Information]

There was a Mail Call show on which I caught a glimpse of the X-29, is that a series of OICW?

[Ratamacue]

The XM29 is the OICW. In its current state, it really isn't that big, and only weighs around the weight of an M249 (~15lbs), slightly more than an M16A2/M203.

This is the current model: http://www.hkpro.com/oicwcasing.jpg
This is the current objective model: http://www.atk.com/productsPrecision/descriptions/products/Shoulder-firedWeapons/images/Block-3-Model.jpg

As you can see, the current model really isn't that big, and mock-ups of the objective models are even smaller and less bulky.

[Bing]

the m14 is a series?

[He219]

Launch and auto barrage or Six (6) 20mm HE rounds and you have some Serious Surpressive Firepower. Hehe!
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/oicw-001.jpg

System Features
Lethality Capability: 20MM High Explosive (Air Bursting) projectiles and 5.56MM Kinetic Energy projectiles
Weapon Length: < 33 in
Weapon Weight: < 12 lbs
Rates of Fire: 20MM - 10 RPM, 5.56MM - equal to M16A2
Range: 20MM - 1,000 meters, 5.56MM equal to or better than M16A2.
Combination 5.56mm and 20mm HE
Single trigger control for both barrels
Ambidextrous weapon and switches
Simple red dot day/night sighting system
Laser adjustment for targets in buildings and in defilade
Unique recoil mitigation and tactical operational awareness

p-)
-He219

[He219]

M14 Series....M21, M1A etc. All derived from the M1 Garand rifle.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as15-e.htm

p-)
-He219

[Duke]

I heard about this a couple months ago by a friend at one of the Army's proving grounds, its not a rifle and since Z posted this...

For years the American Infantry has sought a better shotgun. The military has looked into and used several types; pump action, drum barrel, and magazine shotgun, but they all have problems or limitations, such as the drum barrel is too bulky, magazine and pump have capacity problems (too few) and pump action has left/right and reloading issues. The Army and soon the USMC will look into a new (2001) South African shotgun that does not have the above listed problems. Its called the Neostead. Innovative points
1. Works off a reverse pump action
2. Above the handgrip over the handguard sits two tubes holding 12 shells, can alternate feed tubes or not.
3. All polymer shotgun except for SS parts: barrel, breech and something else I cant remember
4. Ambidextrous ejection port lies in front of trigger guard and ejects upward
5. Breech contained far into the stock and allows for a shorten length.


http://world.gun.ru/shotguns/sh08-e.html
www.army-technology.com/contractors/civil/truvelo

[Piccolo]

I've heard of the Neostead (It's actually been around since 1998/99; not exactly brand new), but didn't realize we were looking at it for testing. Thanks for the info, Duke.

Also, do you think this shotgun will not be adopted by the Corps (assuming it passes testings), only because of the recent inception of the Benelli M4? I have no idea on how many of the JSCS they have baught, but it would seem like a hinderance if they decided to adopt a entirely new shotgun now.. and a big problem for budget, I imagen.

[Duke]

You might of heard of Neostead in 98, but its only been in production since November 2001. For some time the DoD had been talking about a Joint Service Combat Shotgun, however, to date the JSCS is still in the pipeline for the Army/AF/Navy/CG. The long wait (atleast six years) for the JSCS, in part, is due to the November 2001 release date by Neostead, and still needs more evals. (The USMC desires actually outweighed waiting for the Neo's November 2001 production. Remember that no service uses shotguns more than the Corps.) We most likely will see this weapon in CQB (SOF) units, if the Neo is not already. Someone paste a pic of the Neo, its a beautiful weapon.

[FallenAngel]

I like my Mauser K98 thank you very much...

but given the choices....It was a toss up between M16 and G36. Voted for the G36 solely on the fact that HK has to yet disappoint anyone.

[MK133]

I'll take on all previous posters with a minigun! rofl

[Piccolo]

You might of heard of Neostead in 98, but its only been in production since November 2001. For some time the DoD had been talking about a Joint Service Combat Shotgun, however, to date the JSCS is still in the pipeline for the Army/AF/Navy/CG. The long wait (atleast six years) for the JSCS, in part, is due to the November 2001 release date by Neostead, and still needs more evals. (The USMC desires actually outweighed waiting for the Neo's November 2001 production. Remember that no service uses shotguns more than the Corps.) We most likely will see this weapon in CQB (SOF) units, if the Neo is not already. Someone paste a pic of the Neo, its a beautiful weapon.

Thanks, didn't realize it only entered production in 2001. After research, I see it was developed in 1990, first prototype in 91, and second prototype/patent in 1993.

Here is a pic for all to see, btw:

http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/neostead.jpg

[MK133]

add a yellow tank to the top and you'd have yourself rofl a Super Soaker!

[GazB]

The first time I saw a pic of the Neostad it was on the cover of a very early issue of Fighting Firearms (ie SOF related mag).

Looks interesting, but I'd go for a more complete family like the AK family.

Kalashnikov had influence in the development of the PK GPMG, the SVD sniper rifle, plus LMG (RPK and RPK-74), assualt rifle (AK-47, AKM, AK-74, plus AK-100 series) and short barrel assualt rifles in two lengths (AK-100 series and AKS-74U), plus now 9mm SMGs (Bizon, Gepard), and 12 gauge shotgun versions (Saiga and new pump/auto versions).

Only H&K has a comparable range. (It has some very nice belt fed GPMGs in many different calibres).

[woodland]

You are so full of ****. The JSCS is a done deal. It has alrady been delievered. NBC showed pics of the M1014 being used in Iraq by Marines. Why would the US DoD purchase any weapon from an unproven company with an unproven system? Especially a pump-action shotgun which they have been trying to abandon anyway!?!? The M1014 by Benelli is made a proven company who had a very reliable shotgun, altough inertia operated, and so they made a gas operated shotgun, which is even better than the inertia Montefeltro system. You wish they would adopt that POS shotgun.... that turd..... It probably sucks worse than a broken Ithaca 37 without ammo and no bayonet....

[Ratamacue]

Woodland is right about the M1014 being accepted by the Marines. If I remember correctly, they had also looked at the HK CAWS for awhile, but deemed it to be "too lethal" due to its brass casings....

I wouldn't count on the Neostead being accepted by the USMC, not officially, anyway.

[woodland]

Anyway, if I were to have a choice of a weapon for everyday use, I would take my West German marked SIG P226 above anything else. Note, I said everyday use. I wouldn't want to lug an M16 or a SAW (what a horrible comparison anyway? Why didn't you add a Raven or a Lorcin while you are at it? Are you stupid or you are just some kid who knows **** and likes to shoot off his mouth?) :bash: You guys can carry the AK or whatever else for me while I comfortably stroll about with a Jackass rig and two extra mags for my P226. BTW: This certain P226 has 75,000+ rounds of 9mm through it already and it has yet to break any part or have a FTF (failure to fire) or FTE (failure to extract). Sure, I did have the head SIG armorer look it over and polish it here and there and give the trigger a little tune-up (little favor....) but it is still a normal P226. Also: Why didn't you include the FN FAL or the G3 here? If I am off to war, gimme a battle rifle.....

[He219]

Woodland, I believe the survey was limited to Assault Rifles - and quite a restrictive list as previously discussed. We could be discussing pistols, shotguns and close combat weapons for weeks on end. Undoubtedly the Sig Sauer is one of the finest out of box pistols.

As for the SuperSoaker, MK135MODO, it is a FANTASY weapon. A 7.62mm Mini-Gun can not be operated effectively as a hand held weapon. The rotational torque developed by a GE MiniGun requires Platform Stabilization - unless you have the BB version. Even Jesse Ventura would not be able to control bursts from a hand held Minigun - yet alone carry the weight of all the Ammo over distance.

As for GazB's veneration of Mikhail T. Kalashnikov and the AK Series - credit is due to the Maschinenpistole 43, Sturmgewehr 44 and KAR 43. These German designs are arguably the pioneers of the Assault Rifle that Dr. Kalashnikov incorporated into his designs. Stamped Metal Construction, over barrel gas piston, extended front sight tower, removable box magazine and most importantly - the Full Auto Selector Switch - are trademarks of these rifles. Just as swept wing, jet and ballistic missile technologies were absorbed by the USSR from Germany after WWII, so did the fundamental elements of the Sturmgewehr.

In 1945, the former Mauser Waffenfabrik in Oberndorf A.N. was dismantled by French occupying forces. Edmund Heckler, Theodor Koch and Alex Seidel, former Mauser engineers, saved what they could from the ruins and formed Heckler and Koch GmbH (HK) registered in December of 1949. The development of the G3 with the unique delayed-locked roller bolt system was an offshoot from Sturmgewehr technologies previously developed. If you get the opportunity, visit the H&K plant in the Black Forest. It really is something to see.

p-)
He219

[Bing]

mp5's and m249's are assault rifles?!!

i didn't know Klashnikov was a Dr. I've never heard anyone address him with that title before. (i'm not saying he's not, i've just never heard it before)

[GearGod]

My favourites are what the US Army uses i.e. M4, M249, M24, M9, M240, 1911.. umm??? Funny how most starts with a "M"

[a. enders]

:cantbeli:

[FallenAngel]

My favourites are what the US Army uses i.e. M4, M249, M24, M9, M240, 1911.. umm??? Funny how most starts with a "M"

oh yeah, because we American's in our infinate knowledge know everything that's best :bash:

Want an example....the M9. I can't tell you how many time's I've heard from military people (through reading, documentaries, personal contact) that the thing sucks. THe M1911 was perfectly fine. So it had a relatively low number of rounds, but it worked for 60+ years so I don't know why they WANTED a replacement in the first place. But, in choosing a replacement, I heard (could be wrong though) that the SIG and HK designs were passed by even though they were more reliable, more accurate, etc. etc. The ONLY reason the M9 won was because the Army could buy 15 Berretas for the price of 12 SIGs or HKs. So they buy the thing. Look at most SOF though, try and find a standard issue Berreta in a SEAL, SF or Force Recon unit.

and to He219....again, I can only sit in awe of German engineering. Even though I am American and am damn proud of my country...I think Germany has long held a few bars above the US- military engineering/design among them.

[a. enders]

Dad worked at Pinkertone for a wgile,has a .38 wheelgun,but a friend had a Beretta 9mm and another had a Taurus 9mm.Dad put a few through both,and every five rounds the Beretta stove-piped.He loves Taurus now.Maybe the Beretta was in ****ty repair or something,but a military gun should withstand having sand poured in the breech,being buried in a pile of ****,and dropped from three stories and still fire.

Of course....I don't think there's been one ever existed that could take that......

[FallenAngel]

actually....if you believe the ads, Glock, SIG and HK pistols CAN do all that...

...I have YET to read even an add claiming the Berreta can do the same.

[Zach R.]

Let me clear something up.I forgot to tell you that,if you don't see a weapon you like,list your own.And on another note,woodland,backoff,get off my ass for a damn minute and stop drinking Amp(and energy drink from mountain Dew that keeps you awake for 48 hours without stop).Just please try to phase the word s*it out of you posts,you don't need to ust such heavy language to make your point(Oh my God,I'm starting to sound like my Dad,wait,how's my hair).And here's 1 more piece of info,I picked up the book,"Weapons of Delta Force" today at Borders.It's published by MBI and written by Fred J. Pushies(Pushies not pussys).It's an excellent book and has very usefull info if you are still learning(That's why I bought it).Very nice photos,cool graphics,I highly recomend this book.And 1 more thing.Woodland,I wish to appologize for whatever I said that pissed you off,I did not in any way wish to start a fight.

[Duke]

You are so full of ****. The JSCS is a done deal. It has alrady been delievered. NBC showed pics of the M1014 being used in Iraq by Marines. Why would the US DoD purchase any weapon from an unproven company with an unproven system? Especially a pump-action shotgun which they have been trying to abandon anyway!?!? The M1014 by Benelli is made a proven company who had a very reliable shotgun, altough inertia operated, and so they made a gas operated shotgun, which is even better than the inertia Montefeltro system. You wish they would adopt that POS shotgun.... that turd..... It probably sucks worse than a broken Ithaca 37 without ammo and no bayonet....

Woodland crept out of his tool shed. What the **** did I say, the Army and USMC are looking at the Neo. The benelli first came to army ordnance in 1997 and still in the pipeline for everyone execpt the USMC. As for the need of two shotguns, its the same as having M4/M16. The one overiding issue for the neo is its 12 shell capacity and a relatively short length. Conversely, the Benelli has a six to seven capacity and a greater length. Thus, each weapon has its own niche. Of course the neostead wont replace the M1014, they have the contract. The Neo may see itself in about five years in CQB units.

[Trigger]

I prefer the Super Soaker and a couple of 40s :D

[GazB]

credit is due to the Maschinenpistole 43, Sturmgewehr 44 and KAR 43. These German designs are arguably the pioneers of the Assault Rifle that Dr. Kalashnikov incorporated into his designs.

But what was the main driving force behind such German weapons and can they really be considered the pioneers of the assault rifle concept?

The GW 41 was mainly used on the Eastern front to counter the widely used SVT38/40 rifles, which replaced the more complicated AVS36s in 1938. As you can tell by the numbers these weapons predated the German weapons quoted above. While they didn't make the great leap of cheap sheet metal manufacture they had all the other features you credit the German guns with introducing... ie
"Stamped Metal Construction, over barrel gas piston, extended front sight tower, removable box magazine and most importantly - the Full Auto Selector Switch - are trademarks of these rifles."

The Real pioneer of the assualt rifle was also killed by the same thing that almost killed the MG43... a nonstandard calibre. The Federov Avtomat had a 25 round detachable box magazine, fired at 600-650rpm cyclic, had a fore grip, and fired a lighter than standard mild round. (The low powered 6.5 x 50mm Arisaka Japanese round rather than the 7.62 x 54R Russian round).
(It was used in WWI and 5,000 were made.)

"Just as swept wing, jet and ballistic missile technologies were absorbed by the USSR from Germany after WWII, so did the fundamental elements of the Sturmgewehr. "

While most of the impressive work in design was German it was shared before the war to evade arms limitations imposed on the germans in the Treaty of Verssaile (spelling). The Germans supplied the brains and the Soviets the venue and resources for much early work. Lots of seperate work also took place however with the high altitude capabilities of the Mig-3 coming as a complete surprise to the Germans, not to mention advancements in tank design, and short range unguided artillery barrage rockets etc etc.

[He219]

GazB wrote:
But what was the main driving force behind such German weapons and can they really be considered the pioneers of the assault rifle concept?
GazB, technically the Sturmgewehr incorporated the following design features: A Full-Auto Selector Switch, Pistol Grip, Detachable Box Magazine, Stamped Steel Assemblies, Shortened Cartridges and Longer Ranges than conventional Sub-Machine Guns. Just ask the California Legislature for their definition of an Assault Rifle hehe.

Sergei Garolovich Simonov designed the 7.62 mm Avtomaticheskaya Vintovka Sistemi Obrazets 1936 (7.62 mm Model 1936 Simonov System Semiautomatic Rifle) designated more simply as the AVS36.
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Gorge/4653/sks_main.htm

This weapon did have a detachable magazine and later versions became the ubiquitous SKS45. The SVT-38 was chosen over the AVS36 for mass production as a military rifle. Full production of the SVT38 began in 1939. The SKS neither featured a Detachable Magazine or a Full-Auto Selector Switch, but improved in reliability with it's reduced cartridge size. However, it was Not an Assault Rifle. Neither were the Gewehr (KAR) 41&43. They were technologies incorporated into the Sturmgewehr.

The M1 Garand was introduced around 1936 and incorporated similar technologies as the SKS and Gewehr41&43. Even the Thompson Sub-Machine gun was delivered to Europe at the end of WWI. They were not Assault rifles.

Hitler himself halted development of the Maschinenkarrabiner, MKb42. 3,500 units had been field tested in Russia with great effect. The design featured a stamped curving detachable box magazine for the 7.92mm Kurz cartridge, developed by Polte company, propelling a 8.1 g (125 grains) bullet to rougly 680 meters per second. The experimental MKb's were developed by two german companies, Karl Walther (MKb.42(W)) and C.G.Haenel (MKb.42(H)). Both guns were intended as a replacement for submachine guns, bolt action rifles and light machineguns for front-line troops. The MKb.42(H) designed by Hugo Schmeisser was found superior and further development took place under the name of MP-43 (MachinenPistole-1943) to appease Hitler's wishes for only Sub-Machinegun development. Eventually the effectiveness as an Assault Rifle was recognized from use on the Russian Front. Hitler finally approved the new designation Sturmgewehr. 500,000 units were produced as the Stg44, MP44 and MP43. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/posting.php

The Avtomat Kalishnikova Obrazets 1947 (AK47) designed by Michail Timofeyevich Kalishnikov copied many of the features of the SKS45 including portions of the gas system, sights and receiver. Sturmgewehr technologies pioneered by the Germans were also copied and incorporated. By 1953 the SKS had been replaced by the Kalashnikov as the standard-issue rifle for the Red Army.


Lots of seperate work also took place however with the high altitude capabilities of the Mig-3 coming as a complete surprise to the Germans, not to mention advancements in tank design, and short range unguided artillery barrage rockets etc etc.

The development of German Panzers and Blitzkrieg tactics, Jet Fighters, Swept-Wing technology (P1101), Forward Sweep technology (Ju287), Me163 Rocket Interceptors, V1 Cruise Missiles, V2 Ballistic Missiles, HoIX 'Stealth Fighter', Nebelwerfer Rocket System, Panzerfaust, Sturmgewehr etc. - were definitive technological leaps - too little, too late.

GazB, you seem to like Soviet technology so much that you discredit German ingenuity. Don't. :slap:

p-)
He219

[a. enders]

Keep in mind that Kalashnikov has stated that he had not even seen a Sturmgewehr and came up with the AK47 design independently.Admittedly hard to believe as the AK and the STG44 look almost identicle.Of course,are you gonna call him a liar?

[JohnJohn]

I would, whats he gonna do? Shoot me?!?! rofl

[FallenAngel]

I find it hard to believe that a russain tanker going into the heart of Germany WOULDN'T see a STG44.

'course, an M16 is also identical in concept and general layout. ;)

[He219]

Fine, if you want me to get Technical....
:bash:
Czarist Russia's Vladimir Fedorov developed the first Select Fire rifle with a detachable box magazine and forward pistol grip before WWI, the revolutionary Fedorov Avtomat 1916(FA16). However it is not considered an Assault Rifle because it fired a difficult 6.5x50mm Meiji 30 Japanese cartridge. Receiver failures were the issue.

Submachineguns were around for a long time including the Thompson in 1918. They were limited in range and are not considered Assault Rifles. The M1 Garand was also developed around 1936. The M1 Carbine and Select Fire M2 was developed before WWII. The 30 carbine was ineffective at intermediate to long ranges. Not until the advent of the Italian Fiocchi 9M38 for the Beretta MAB38 did the effectiveness of intermediate cartridges become a reality.

It was the development of the Sturmgewehr that defined the Assault Rifle. A Select Fire Switch, Detachable box magazine, a pistol grip, midrange ammunition and provisions to mass produce using sheet metal technology defined the Sturmgewehr. The MP43 and MP44 became the Stg44 after Hitler halted obstruction. The final refinement came with the development of the Stg45. http://world.guns.ru/assault/as60-e.htm

WWII Mauser engineer Ludwig Vorgrimler who later worked for Spanish CETME is recognized for developing the Stg45 and the roller delayed blowback system. Vorgrimler and CETME licensed this technology to his friends at HK in 1957. The G3-type weapon was in production by CETME in the early 50's. His impact is lasting with continuation of the Maschinenpistole (MP) line and the Gewehr (G) line at HK, currently the MP5 and G36.

Note the Stg45 rear sight post, front tower and the CETME MaschinenPistole-type underfolder - all utilized by the AK47 and the AKM in '59. The MP43 Stamped 'Bananna' magazines are self-evident. Michail T. Kalashnikov clearly copied Sergei Garolovich Simonov's SKS45 as the front end is almost indestinguishable with the AK47.


History
The AK-47 was not the first assault rifle but was derived from earlier german and italian designs.

Wounded in the battle of Brausk, tank sergeant Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov began imagining his weapon while still in the hospital. He had been informed that Elisarov and Semin had developed in 1943 a 7,62 x 39 cartridge, so a weapon was neeed for it. Sudayev's PPS43 was preferred to Kalashnikov's first attempt, but having examined a STG 44, in 1946 Kalashnikov found the design for rifle (and the similarities remain evident).
There were many difficulties during the first phase of production, as the soviets weren't able to use stamped sheet metal to build it. Instead, they preferred machining the components. Even though it was famous as the "AK 47" (where AK stands for Avtomat Kalashnikov, or Kalashnikov's Machine gun), the Russians were not able to distribute it to soldiers until 1956. The first transfer-stamped sheet metal version appeared in 1959 and is named AKM. The last soviet version is AK 74, and it is scheduled for replacement by the AN-94 Nikonov rifle. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

So take it from Encyclopedia Wikipedia (if not me) that Michail T. Kalashnikov integrated technologies from the Sturmgewehr and others.
:slap:

Or is it that 'Marxist Blowpipe' that refuses to credit German ingenuity?

p-)
He219

[GazB]

I find it hard to believe that a russain tanker going into the heart of Germany WOULDN'T see a STG44.


Agreed, but Kalashnikov didn't drive anywhere near Germany... he was injured in September 1941... 3 years before the STG44 was made and was invalided out of service.

"GazB, technically the Sturmgewehr incorporated the following design features: A Full-Auto Selector Switch, Pistol Grip, Detachable Box Magazine, Stamped Steel Assemblies, Shortened Cartridges and Longer Ranges than conventional Sub-Machine Guns. Just ask the California Legislature for their definition of an Assault Rifle hehe. "

And technically the Federov Avtomat incorporated the following design features: Fullauto selector switch, Pistol Grip, Detachable box (25 rounds), shortened cartridges... the purpose was reduced recoil and power over standard round, but more power than pistol ammo used in SMGs.

I could care less what the California legislature says... they are a civilian body that seems merely to want to create a definition for a weapon type merely to enable them to ban its use or ownership.

My definition of an assault rifle is any weapon that tries (however successfully or otherwise) to combine the virtues of the Rifle and the SMG... ie range and power plus firepower (ie high rate of fire) for close range use or use in urban areas or jungle etc.
An FN FAL is an assualt rifle... even with a full power round.

"The M1 Garand was introduced around 1936 and incorporated similar technologies as the SKS and Gewehr41&43. Even the Thompson Sub-Machine gun was delivered to Europe at the end of WWI. They were not Assault rifles. "

I wasn't suggesting the SVT and AVS were assualt rifles, merely that they predated the weapons you mentioned and could have been the basis for later Soviet work.

"The Avtomat Kalishnikova Obrazets 1947 (AK47) designed by Michail Timofeyevich Kalishnikov copied many of the features of the SKS45 including portions of the gas system, sights and receiver."

Rubbish. The gas system is rather different... the AK having the piston rod attached to the bolt carrier, in the SKS they are seperate. Also the AK uses a rotary bolt, the SKS does not. Both use an over barrel gas system, but then so does the other Soviet rifles I mentioned. The SKS was based on the PTRS-41... an anti tank rifle in 14.5 x 114mm calibre.

"Sturmgewehr technologies pioneered by the Germans were also copied and incorporated. "

Bull, the lessons learned by the Soviet forces were incorperated into the SKS. The captive mag was to prevent the loss of the mag, which was common amongst conscript troops. The Semi auto only capablity was to keep firing rates down.

"GazB, you seem to like Soviet technology so much that you discredit German ingenuity. Don't."

I have the utmost respect for German accomplishments, but I don't give it blindly.

The Soviets were working on assault rifle calibres before the war... such work was halted to prevent delays in getting equipment to the front. The result was that Germany appeared to be more technocally advanced, but the result was that they were out produced and defeated.
German armour tactics were the best of the war. There is no dispute there.
The Panzer 4 was merely adequate and it was the dominant tank type for most of the war for the germans.

Swept wing technology was impressive but of no use... it delays drag when approaching supersonic speeds... as no conventional aircraft from WWII got to such speed, nor was combat possible at such speeds such advances are meaningless. The forward swept wing was of no use till modern technologies made them practical, the cost and waste on useless projects like the Me 163s could have built and extra 1,000 Bf-109s of Fw-190s that they actually needed, cruise missiles were impressive but ultimately not that important (not till much later with ICBMs and tomahwks). The Nebelwerfer Rocket System was not superior to the Katusha and the Katusha predated German rocket artillery systems, so they are hardly a German invention. Panzerfausts were very simple and not more advanced than the US bazooka or the British PIAT... certainly no technological leaps of any benefit before the war ended and therefore a waste of effort that brought the end (ie allied victory) of the war nearer rather than delaying it...

[MK133]

He219,


As for the SuperSoaker, MK135MODO, it is a FANTASY weapon. A 7.62mm Mini-Gun can not be operated effectively as a hand held weapon. The rotational torque developed by a GE MiniGun requires Platform Stabilization - unless you have the BB version. Even Jesse Ventura would not be able to control bursts from a hand held Minigun - yet alone carry the weight of all the Ammo over distance.

Just kiddn about the Minigun ;) unless I was in a Blackhawk! My weapon of choice is either my AR-15A2 or SP1 Carbine, Springfield M14 or a Stoner 63 for a shotgun I'll take the Ithaca M37!

By the way He219, I have a picture of a guy shooting a Minigun standing on his own 2 feet, not M200, hea is shooting the real stuff! p-)

[a. enders]

Quite the contrary.The German's made some outstanding technological advancments.Too bad they were too complex or too late to be effective. I'll just chalk that up to having a leader who thought he was the worlds greatest military mind since Napolean.

:bash: Stupid vegan....

[He219]

hahahahahahahaahahahah-GazB!

Do you really believe Michail T. Kalashnikov had to drive to East Prussia in a T34 to get a hold of an MP43?

Also, that was a 'FORWARD Pistol-type Grip' ONLY and a 6.5x50mm cartridge is hardly intermediate. Perhaps shortened compared to a 7.62x54 hehehe...And certainly not made of Sheetmetal hehehe

So the NATO 7.62x51 is FULL LENGTH vs. the 7.62x54 or 8mm Mauser? Hehehehe But it's too heavy and they switched to the 5.56 NATO Anyway!
And the FN FAL and G3 are Stamped! Hahaha

Hey, the 1936 M1 Garand fires the 'Shortened' Springfield 30-06 :) compared to a 50BMG... But it doesn't have a removable magazine or PISTOL GRIP!

You are right about the California Legislature's definition, but they made sure to categorically define a broad swath of SMG's and Assault Weapons.

Of course CZarist Russian designs were incorporated by the USSR as well as Kalashnikov who swallowed Sergei Garolovich Simonov's designs!


Michail T. Kalashnikov clearly copied Sergei Garolovich Simonov's SKS45 as the front end is almost indestinguishable with the AK47.
Now that's ALMOST INDESTINGUISHABLE, GazB. Yes it's shorter too! I will check on the Bolt Mechanisms.

Bull?? Sturmgewehr technologies were NOT copied and incorporated by the AK and AKM? Michail T. Kalashnikov DID NOT design the SKS. He just ABSORBED it along with the MP43,44 and Stg45!! Nice underfolder. WHERE ever did you see that design before. Nice Bananna mag. Nice AKM stampings - OOHH I guess SOVIETS had to learn SHEET METAL techniques to make the AK47 out of Stampings in 1959! Then Milled receivers are so much more durable - and heavier - and costlier hahaha

EVERYTHING you cited is in my Previous Post and Links! HAHAHA

The Soviets were not the only ones working on Assault Rifle Calibers before the War. Read the last post.

Clearly the Germans were outproduced on BOTH FRONTS. Don't tell me Hitler's meddling DIDN'T cause OBSTRUCTION of implementations of superior tactics, technologies and firepower. He was a NUT!! A control Freak. Like you can't accept that the SOVIETS were not the technical ESPRIT DE CORPS - I call it the BUNKER SYNDROME.

So the Panther, Tiger, Ferdinand and Mouse were inferior to SOVIET designs? What was Germany's primary tank at KURSK?

Swept wings didn't have an impact? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahhahahahhahahhahahahahahahahahahahah

Jet Powered forward swept wing technology was of 'no use' till Russians started making the Su-47(S-37 Berkut)! Hahaha The P1101 doesnt look like a Mig-15? Hahahaha The Do335 at 470mph was no match for the Yak, the He219 sucked against the Mosquito, the Me163 Comet wasn't the fastest plane of WWII and isn't the only rocket interceptor ever to fly in combat? At Mach 0.84 the Me163 didn't need swept wings? Neither did the Me262.....MEANINGLESS?? That is until it had CCCP on it!!!!


1000's of planes for Hitler Youth to fly? Look up the He-162 program! Fighter production increased until the end of the war! No-one was left to fly them - NO FUEL. The V1 and V2 were NOT IMPORTANT - TELL THAT TO LONDON!!!! How was the Battleship ROMA sunk? Did the Condors and He177 Maritime interceptors not us Cruise Missiles? What of that Hs294 TELEVISION GUIDED ROCKET POWERED TORPEDO GLIDE BOMB?
Of course the Ballistic Missile had NO BEARING on the FUTURE or that it resulted in MANNED SPACE EXPLORATION. But Werner Von Braun was Soviet, wasn't he???

German artillery was inferior to Soviet. The Dora and Gustav were puny compared to Soviet artillery at Sevastopol, hehehe

Of course the Katyusha was better, the RPG reigns supreme, the Kalashnikov was the first Assault Rifle, the USSR won the cold war and Americans are Capitalist Dogs....

But don't credit the Germans where SOVIETS prevailed! SALUT COMRADE
:cantbeli:

I DID SAY TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. SOVIETS AND AMERICANS BENEFITTED FROM GERMAN SCIENCE AND INNOVATION.

p-)
He219

[He219]

MK135MOD0: Post the Pic!! PLEASE :)

Ever see the Pic of the Dude getting hit in the GUT by a cannonball?

Send the link....

Have a Grrrrreat Day!

woot
He219

[MK133]

I will have to find it, scan it and email it to you. I is in an old magazine article.

[Redford]

I thought Kalashnikov was wound in White Russia 44 and he didnt attend the battles in East Purssia, the Stg44 and its early vision has been used and captured in Russia as early as the end of 42(in stalingrad). the red army already have some Stg44 before they prepare to design their own assault rifle.

[He219]

Redford:
One wonders how the world would have changed had Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov not been severely wounded in battle at Brausk in 1941.

Already something of an inventor, Kalashnikov used his convalescent leave to study small arms design. He first designed a SMG, but this was beaten out by A.I. Sudayev’s improved PPS42, which was adopted as the PPS43. However, his design showed enough promise that he was allowed to remain a designer, instead of being returned to the front.

Around the same time, the designers N.M. Elizarov and B.V. Semin had developed the 7.62x39mm M43 intermediate cartridge, and thus, new weapons were needed for the cartridge. S.G. Simonov was the first to produce a successful platform for the cartridge: the SKS45; however, the military really did not want a carbine as much as an Avtomat (Assault Rifle), like the German Stg 44.

After an unsuccessful prototype in 1944, Kalashnikov unveiled his latest attempt in early 1946. To his surprise, it was adopted a year later as the Avtomat Kalashnikova 1947 (AK47 for short). The earliest versions displayed the design’s classic reliability; however, the technology for building the pressed sheet-metal receivers was not as advanced, at least in the Soviet Union.

The stampings of first model AK47s would reportedly deform or pull apart with heavy use. Thus, the receiver was redesigned in 1951 to be machined from a block of steel instead. In 1953 another slight modification was made to create the third model AK47. This is the most common AK47 encountered, and was copied by numerous Soviet allies. Soviet production continued until the introduction of the improved stamped receiver AKM in 1959.
http://www.poultorp.dk/dtf/assault_rifles.html

p-)

[GazB]

"Czarist Russia's Vladimir Fedorov developed the first Select Fire rifle with a detachable box magazine and forward pistol grip before WWI, the revolutionary Fedorov Avtomat 1916(FA16). However it is not considered an Assault Rifle because it fired a difficult 6.5x50mm Meiji 30 Japanese cartridge. "

The Federov Avtomat is considered the first attempt to combine the virtues of the battle rifle and the SMG. Making it the first implementation of the assualt rifle concept. Hitler coined the phrase assault rifle, but that doesn't mean he invented the concept.
The 6.5mm Japanese round is very mild and can certainly be considered a reduced power cartridge compared to the 7.62 x 54R. The main reasons it was adopted was because it was semi rimmed and of reduced power compared to the then standard Russian round.

"Receiver failures were the issue. "

So what? I said it was the first known implementation of the assault rifle concept... I didn't say it was the best one.
The Gewehr 43 also suffered from having a weak receiver... I guess that means it wasn't an automatic rifle... was it a pistol perhaps?

"Submachineguns were around for a long time including the Thompson in 1918. They were limited in range and are not considered Assault Rifles."

Thank you for telling me something I already knew.

The whole purpose of an assault rifle was to combine the compactness and rate of fire of a SMG with the power and range of a battle rifle.
The MP44 did this with a reduced power, but full calibre round. It was very heavy (over 5kgs) but you still consider it an assault rifle. Why not the Federov Avtomat?

"A Select Fire Switch, Detachable box magazine, a pistol grip, midrange ammunition and provisions to mass produce using sheet metal technology defined the Sturmgewehr."

So you are saying that the AK-47 wasn't an assault rifle?

Later models used sheet metal fabrication, but the most produced model AK-47 was milled from a solid block of steel.

A Steyr AUG can't be an assault rifle either as the rear pistol grip isn't free standing... it has a foregrip... but so does the Federov Avtomat.

"His impact is lasting with continuation of the Maschinenpistole (MP) line and the Gewehr (G) line at HK, currently the MP5 and G36. "

Except that the G36 doesn't use the roller locking mechanism used in the G3 and CETME rifles anymore and has adopted the more common rotating bolt.

"Note the Stg45 rear sight post, front tower and the CETME MaschinenPistole-type underfolder - all utilized by the AK47 and the AKM in '59."

And also utilised by any rifle that has the gas tube on top of the barrel... how else can you align the rear sight to a front mounted sight on the much lower barrel?
The Stg45 certainly predates the AK-47, but so does the AVS-36, which also predates the Stg45 and SKS.

"The MP43 Stamped 'Bananna' magazines are self-evident."

Curved magazines to solve feeding problems with bottle shaped cartridges were hardly invented by the Germans with the MP43.

Even the Federov Avtomat... made in 1916 used a curved 25 round detachable magazine.

"Michail T. Kalashnikov clearly copied Sergei Garolovich Simonov's SKS45 as the front end is almost indestinguishable with the AK47. "

If you can't see the difference between the front end of an SKS and an AK-47 then I feel sorry for you.
Owning an example of each rifle I can tell you they are quite different externally and VERY different internally.
The post front sight, overbarrel gas tube and front handgrips bear passing similarity, but the fact that the SKS is fully wooded, while the AK obviously is not and that the SKS uses a sliding block mechanism, while the AK uses a turning bolt mechanism makes them rather different.
(the barrel of the SKS is rather longer than the barrel of the AK as well).

"So take it from Encyclopedia Wikipedia (if not me) that Michail T. Kalashnikov integrated technologies from the Sturmgewehr and others. "

Ummm, as impressive as the wikipedia sounds I think they should work on their attention to detail. The Sudayev PPS-43 was indeed chosen over Kalashnikovs entry... for a submachinegun competition. 7.62 x 25 Tokarev calibre. (Which was based on the German Broomhandle Mauser 7.62 x 25mm round).

The first AKs produced had problems with structural weakness. To solve the problems would have required sheet metal so thick it would have made the weapon too heavy.
There was already plenty of production facilities available able to mill receivers to the standard required, the byproduct was they were slightly heavier than anticipated and took longer and more resources to make each weapon. The weapons themselves were more durable and lasted much longer than the later sheet metal versions.

There were three models of AK-47 before the AKM was designed and put into production. The AKM merely being a cheaper, lighter model.

"Or is it that 'Marxist Blowpipe' that refuses to credit German ingenuity? "

I'll give credit where it is due.

Although dated I have more respect for "The AK-47 Story" by Edward C Ezell (Curator, Division of Armed Forces History, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institute.) than almost any other source on the subject... certainly more independant that some Russian or Soviet sources.

"Admittedly hard to believe as the AK and the STG44 look almost identicle."

The basic features... stock, pistol grip, curved long magazine, short barrel, gas tube above the barrel, post front sight were not new even on the STG44. Many other weapons had such features before and since. To suggest there must have been copying is as much rubbish as to suggest everything is a unique creation built from scratch in a vaccuum.

There is evidence to suggest the as part of the military work done during the immediate prewar period both the Germans and the Soviets examined small rounds... the Soviets more so as their standard round was fully rimmed and difficult to use in automatic weapons.

"By the way He219, I have a picture of a guy shooting a Minigun standing on his own 2 feet, not M200, hea is shooting the real stuff!"

Like to see him walk around with it... the powersupply alone weighs about 20kgs, and that isn't including the gun, the ammo feed and the ammo.

"Do you really believe Michail T. Kalashnikov had to drive to East Prussia in a T34 to get a hold of an MP43?"

In 1941 there was no such thing as an MP43. How many souviners were making their way back from the front during WWII on the Eastern front... Russian soldiers weren't rotated front to back very often... not even in body bags as they often just lay where they fell.

"Also, that was a 'FORWARD Pistol-type Grip' ONLY and a 6.5x50mm cartridge is hardly intermediate. Perhaps shortened compared to a 7.62x54 hehehe...And certainly not made of Sheetmetal hehehe "

The reduced power round is not essential to make it an assault rifle. Why do you think otherwise?
Here in New Zealand any (centrefire) automatic rifle with with a magazine larger than 7 rounds is considered an assault rifle... what the hell do civilian government boards know about firearms?

An FN FAL is not made of sheet metal... a Sten SMG is... I guess an FN FAL must be the SMG and the Sten is an assault rifle.

I have said it before and I'll repeat it here... an assault rifle is a weapon that attempts (however successfully) to combine the virtues of the SMG (ie rate of fire and compactness and portability) with the virtues of a battle rifle (ie power and range).
The result is something that has longer range than a SMG and a more powerful round than the pistol bullets the SMG usually fires, but is lighter and smaller than a battle rifle and capable of suppressive fire. (ie full auto).

Semi only rifles like the Draganov sniper rifle or the SKS don't qualify, nor do Semi auto only L1A1 versions of the FN FAL.

"So the NATO 7.62x51 is FULL LENGTH vs. the 7.62x54 or 8mm Mauser? Hehehehe But it's too heavy and they switched to the 5.56 NATO Anyway!
And the FN FAL and G3 are Stamped! Hahaha "

"Hey, the 1936 M1 Garand fires the 'Shortened' Springfield 30-06 compared to a 50BMG... But it doesn't have a removable magazine or PISTOL GRIP! "

I own an L1A1 and it is milled... there are no rivets for rigidity there buddy.
Also 7.62 x 51mm is the reduced size round adopted as standard by NATO.
It is rather less powerful than the .30 06 (especially with heavy bullets).

"Now that's ALMOST INDESTINGUISHABLE, GazB. Yes it's shorter too! I will check on the Bolt Mechanisms."

You don't need to bother... I own each rifle. The SKS bolt and carrier are anything but rotary...

"WHERE ever did you see that design before. Nice Bananna mag. "

The Federov Avtomat of 1916 had a curved 25 round mag.

"Nice AKM stampings - OOHH I guess SOVIETS had to learn SHEET METAL techniques to make the AK47 out of Stampings in 1959!"

The PPS-43 used sheetmetal techniques. The amazing leap the germans made was not to introduce sheet metal stampings to guns... SMGs had already been made that way for some time. It was to use it on a powerful weapon like a rifle that was a little unusual... of course it was a necessity rather than a technical breakthrough.

"So the Panther, Tiger, Ferdinand and Mouse were inferior to SOVIET designs? What was Germany's primary tank at KURSK?"

I said that where?

The Panther was a German copy of the T-34. They made the mistake of making it too complicated and less were made in the whole war than one months production of T-34s in 1944. The Panther was superior to the T-34/76, but how many Panthers were there? Maybe 200 on the whole eastern front in 1943?
The T-34/85 was not superior to the Panther either but achieved rough parity in gun, armour, had a better crew arrangement in the turret (than the arrangement in the T-34/76 that is )and was much more reliable... (than the Panther) more importantly it was still being made in huge numbers.

The German army probably would have done much better if the Panther and Tiger and other exotic designs had stayed on the design boards and instead concentrated on producing the workhorse... the Panzer 4, and relied on excellent commanders and tactics to win their battles.

"Jet Powered forward swept wing technology was of 'no use' till Russians started making the Su-47(S-37 Berkut)!"

You said that not me. Without modern directional strength carbon fibre weaves making up the wing structure the manouver capability of FSW aircraft is poor... or has every airforce in the world produced millions of FSW aircraft? ...nope, their use has largely been restricted to research. (X-29 and Su-47).

"the Me163 Comet wasn't the fastest plane of WWII and isn't the only rocket interceptor ever to fly in combat?"

And for the cost of designing and building both the aircraft and the facilities they needed to operate... how many enemy planes did they shoot down?
For the money spent on them, not to mention production facilities, people and time, 1,000 Fw-190s would have been much more sensible.
How many men were tied up designing exotic technologies when Fw-190s were what Germany needed?

"Neither did the Me262.....MEANINGLESS?? That is until it had CCCP on it!!!! "

And even then it failed to get into service in the Soviet Union... it must have been amazing.


"But Werner Von Braun was Soviet, wasn't he??? "

Werner Von Braun was an unrepentant NAZI and had very little to do with the Soviets... I believe the Americans took that AHole under their wings.


"The Dora and Gustav were puny compared to Soviet artillery at Sevastopol, hehehe "

Dora and Gustav were purely and simply Siege guns. Sevastopol was the only target worthy of their size and weight. Otherwise they were big awkward and not that much more use than a dozen stukas, except their all weather capability. Another case of overkill.

"German artillery was inferior to Soviet."

I am the the commie flute, but you are the one playing the tune...

"Of course the Katyusha was better, the RPG reigns supreme, the Kalashnikov was the first Assault Rifle, the USSR won the cold war and Americans are Capitalist Dogs.... "

I didn't say Katy was better... I said it was the first practical MRL. I haven't mentioned the RPG, though it is rather popular at the moment and the recent past. And since when have I said the Kalashnikov was the first Assault Rifle?

"I DID SAY TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. SOVIETS AND AMERICANS BENEFITTED FROM GERMAN SCIENCE AND INNOVATION. "

I disagree... the world benefitted from German science, but it has also benefitted from Soviet science, American science, British, French, even New Zealand Science.
Why the chip on you shoulder?

At least your Quote from http://www.poultorp.dk/dtf/assault_rifles.html starts to get the facts straight regarding SMG design.
It fails to mention that the SKS as we know it now was based on the SKS41 and was field tested in 1944. Design changes (like the permanant bayonnett and removal of the muzzle brake) lead to the SKS-45 which entered service to replace the obsolescent bolt action Mosin Nagant, though all it did was supplant it for a while. The SKS is most widely seen now as a guard weapon for ceremonial occasions.

[GazB]

"Czarist Russia's Vladimir Fedorov developed the first Select Fire rifle with a detachable box magazine and forward pistol grip before WWI, the revolutionary Fedorov Avtomat 1916(FA16). "

How can the Model 1916 Federov Avtomat have been a Pre WWI design... when do you think WWI started?

[Loke]

Favorite rifle because of coolness factor: Heckler&Koch HK33K
http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/hk33ka3_02.jpg

[martinexsquaddie]

Favorite weapons
Accuracy international L96 put all the bolt on goodies you want on an M4 its still a cut down M16. Accuracy international build the finest sniper rifles out of the box. Don't need an armourer to maintain just shoot better
than anything else and best of all I could'nt break it.
FN MAG gpmg Firepower and I could'nt break it nobody messes with a gpmy.
Vickers its water cooled saw one demonstrated thing can shoot for 48 hours without stopping try that with anyother MG and its barrel will melt in the first hour with high power ammo it can do map predicted fire out to 4and a half miles
Thompson submachine gun its cool brass and wood throws bloody great slugs ok its not that reliable but it looks good.
MP5k looks cool in a shoulder rig ok never could hit anything with it.
Spas 12 loaded with 00buck shot not actually something to take into battle BUT FOR PISSING OFF RANGE WARDENS ITS IDEAL 3rounds can take a fig 11 to pieces not clever but fun :)
HK53 Works really well as well and i could'nt break it :)
L85 7 in workshops 999993 to go

[He219]

GazB, you don't want to let this one go... :cantbeli:

How can the Model 1916 Federov Avtomat have been a Pre WWI design... when do you think WWI started?
Are you really that lame? Now you are pissing me off.....

The Federov-designed Avtomaticheskaya Vintovka Federova, 1916g went into pre-productin before WWI started in August 1914. Things have to be developed first, you know. :fork:


In 1907 Vladimir Federov wrote Avtomaticheskogo Oruzhie (Automatic Weapons), advocating light-weight self-loading rifles to replace the effective but archaic workhorse of the Czar's army, the Mosin Nagant...
During 1907 as well, Federov and Vasily Alekseyevich Degtyarve developed a self loading rifle with a forward cycling barrel which showed great promise.... http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Gorge/4653/sks_main.htm

GazB wrote:
The Federov Avtomat is considered the first attempt to combine the virtues of the battle rifle and the SMG. Making it the first implementation of the assualt rifle concept

YOU ARE SUCH A NUT, GAZB! The Russians never developed a SMG by the end of WWI, yet alone incorporate the design elements of one starting in 1907 - to develop YOUR Concept. NUTS! You would like to interpret history that way. The truth is that the German Bergmann MP18 was the first SMG fielded. Italy was the first country to adopt a sub-machine gun, the 'Villar Perosa' in 1915. So how could the virtues of a SMG be incorporated? Therefore the Federov Avtomat is NOT considered the first implementation of the assault rifle concept. THAT REMAINS WITH THE STURMGEWEHR (StG) :slap:
http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/arms/submachg/armsmg1.htm
http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/arms/armindx2.htm

Not until the advent of the Italian Fiocchi 9M38 for the Beretta MAB38 did the effectiveness of intermediate cartridges become a reality.

GazB wrote:
If you can't see the difference between the front end of an SKS and an AK-47 then I feel sorry for you.
Owning an example of each rifle I can tell you they are quite different externally and VERY different internally :cantbeli:

Did I not say, ALMOST INDISTIGUISHABLE! I bought an SKS in '89 after seeing the East German Honor Guards use them ceremonially. I also have a MAK-90 and know the similarities quite well. HOTHEAD!

Of course you will not admit the SOVIETS lacked the knowhow to stamp AK47 receivers until the LATE 50's. How do milled receivers make an economically mass-produced assault weapon? Are the majority really of Milled Receiver type - worldwide?

GazB wrote:
The amazing leap the germans made was not to introduce sheet metal stampings to guns... SMGs had already been made that way for some time. It was to use it on a powerful weapon like a rifle that was a little unusual... of course it was a necessity rather than a technical breakthrough.
:cantbeli:
GazB wrote:
In 1941 there was no such thing as an MP43
If you read the previous posting - M.T. Kalashnikov became a weapons designer after injury in 1941. He focused attention soley to weapons development THEREAFTER. The Soviets wanted a Sturmgewehr of their own....


The Russians were the first to come into contact with the sturmgewehr and its ruthless efficiency. They immediately made plans to capitalize on the concept after capturing examples in several places along the front. The concept of the assault rifle eventually made its way to a young Russian tank commander on convalescent leave in Kazakhstan. His name was Mikhail Kalashnikov http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/firearms/assault/iapps_ar.html

IS IT SINKING IN YET! M.T. KALASHNIKOV HAD TO INTEGRATE STURMGEWEHR TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE THE AK47-AKM.

GazB wrote:
Also 7.62 x 51mm is the reduced size round adopted as standard by NATO
Previously you wrote:
An FN FAL is an assualt rifle... even with a full power round
WHAT ARE YOU SAYING??? rofl

GaB wrote:
The Panther was a German copy of the T-34
Hahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahaghghghghahahahaha-
hahhahghghghaahhahahahahahhahahahhahaahhahahahhaehheehehehe-
heheeoogohohohohohohohohohohoohhahaha!!!!

GazB wrote:
The German army probably would have done much better if the Panther and Tiger and other exotic designs had stayed on the design boards and instead concentrated on producing the workhorse... the Panzer 4, and relied on excellent commanders and tactics to win their battles.

The Leopard was an offshott of the Tiger and Panther series of Panzers. Figures you believe that they should have stayed with the PzKw4!

GazB wrote:
Dora and Gustav were purely and simply Siege guns. Sevastopol was the only target worthy of their size and weight. Otherwise they were big awkward and not that much more use than a dozen stukas, except their all weather capability. Another case of overkill

The Dora was the most powerful artillery system ever used in combat. The Gustav never made it to Sevastopol, hehehehehe

The only target the Dora crushed was Sevastopol. During five days, the gun shot 48 shells over 7 targets. Its monstruous power put down the forts of the town, delivering never seen damage at each shot. You know the "bang" a rifle does, so try to imagine the sound of apocalypse when a 7 ton shell is fired, using thousands pounds of gun powder, enough to send it dozens of miles away... This is not sci-fi, this was the madness of a tyran, and probably the most outstanding achievement in conventionnal balistics.
http://palpatine.chez.tiscali.fr/Page13/page13.htm

Not much more than a dozen Stukas, hahahahahhahahahhhahaha

You know GazB, the Dora even used HELICOPTERS as forward battle damage assessors. Hardly new technology.....hehehehe

GazB wrote:
"I DID SAY TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. SOVIETS AND AMERICANS BENEFITTED FROM GERMAN SCIENCE AND INNOVATION. "

I disagree... the world benefitted from German science, but it has also benefitted from Soviet science, American science, British, French, even New Zealand Science

You are a fool. You disagree with something I did not write. SOVIETS AND AMERICANS BENEFITTED - I didn't write the world.

As for your SKS info - I PREVIOUSLY LISTED THE LINK, look it up
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Gorge/4653/sks_main.htm

GazB, you are so full of HOT AIR that I think you are just a BLOWPIPE.

Your statements are without reference and purely compulsive. You may know many things, but it is the things that you don't that make you sound FOOLISH. Reden ist Silber, Schweigen ist Gold!

p-)
He219

[He219]

Correction, the French article is flawed. It is the Gustav that pulverized Sevastopol only. Dora was elsewhere. http://www.cix.co.uk/~nrobinson/railgun/Railwayguns/German/Dora%20index.htm

p-)
He219

[shaky]

My personal fav is the Chinese made pellet rifle I have - 1 pump. Good for small animals like birds, squirrels, cats, etc. :lol:

It's way better than the Daisy rifle - have to pump that bitch 10 times for any effectiveness. rofl

[He219]

Shaky, Daisy actually licensed with Winchester to produce several of the original Diana breach-break designs that the Chinese now export.

http://daisy.ifware.com/cgi-bin/daisy2/products_winchester.html

Between 1969 and 1974, Winchester marketed eight different models of air rifles and two models of air pistols that were made by a German manufacturer. A total of 19,259 Winchester air rifles and pistols were imported. The most valuable is the Model 333.

The first significant introduction of imported adult airguns was made by the Stoeger Arms Co. catalog operation prior to W.W.II. They brought in a few of the old Diana models under the Peerless name and also cataloged a few other adult airguns.. Later, Winchester imported a few thousand Diana guns.

http://www.diana-airguns.de/english/index.html
http://www.dianaairguns.com


Perhaps the most historically important American airgun of all was an air rifle carried by Captain Meriwether Lewis on the famous Lewis and Clark expedition of 1803-06. The most recent research fairly conclusively indicates that this was a .31" caliber, flintlock-style, pneumatic rifle built by Isaiah Lukens in Philadelphia. It served Captain Lewis well, both for hunting and to astonish the Indians.
http://www.air-rifle.net/history/history.html

p-)
He219

[GazB]

The Federov-designed Avtomaticheskaya Vintovka Federova, 1916g went into pre-productin before WWI started in August 1914. Things have to be developed first, you know.

OK so if you think the Federov Avtomat that entered service in 1916 was available for use before 1914 when may I ask was the AK-47 available? If you allow a similar time period the AK-47 must have been available in 1944 at least... or maybe this is all bollocks and the inservice model number given to the rifle is the earliest it is ready for manufacture and certainly not available for widespread use several years after that... if at all.


The Russians never developed a SMG by the end of WWI, yet alone incorporate the design elements of one starting in 1907 - to develop YOUR Concept.

The Federov Avtomat was developed with the intention of replacing the standard rifle with a weapon that matched the requirements of an assault rifle. Ie full auto capability, small compact size, more power and range than a weapon equipped with a pistol round. While they had no SMG in service they knew what a SMG was. In fact many captured weapons were used including Broom handle mauser machine pistols which were so popular that eventually the round the model they used they adopted themselves.


Did I not say, ALMOST INDISTIGUISHABLE! I bought an SKS in '89 after seeing the East German Honor Guards use them ceremonially. I also have a MAK-90 and know the similarities quite well. HOTHEAD!

Then obviously the problem is your understanding of the english language.
Almost indistinguishable means "hard to tell apart".
If you have seen them then you will know they are not hard to tell apart.


Of course you will not admit the SOVIETS lacked the knowhow to stamp AK47 receivers until the LATE 50's.

The first AK-47 receivers were stamped. They were also found to be not strong enough and the design was changed to a milled version till the design was improved to allow stampings to be used as standard.
(Obviously with a SMG using a pistol bullet it wasn't a problem in the past).


"How do milled receivers make an economically mass-produced assault weapon?"

Many rifles have been mass produced without using stampings... very few bolt action rifles use stampings, and they were made cheap enough.

Milled weapons also last much longer.


If you read the previous posting - M.T. Kalashnikov became a weapons designer after injury in 1941. He focused attention soley to weapons development THEREAFTER. The Soviets wanted a Sturmgewehr of their own....

Hmmm a guy lying in a hospital bed well behind the front lines... what do you think he will be doing... looking at rifles captured from the front lines that hadn't been invented yet, or reading all the books he could get his hands on... like Vladimir Federov's book Avtomaticheskogo Oruzhie (Automatic Weapons) written in 1907 or Evolution of Small Arms published in 1939 also by Federov?


IS IT SINKING IN YET! M.T. KALASHNIKOV HAD TO INTEGRATE STURMGEWEHR TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE THE AK47-AKM.

What technology? Kalashnikov could have designed his gas system on the AVS-36 or an early Tokarev. The curved high capacity magazine he could have copied from the Federov Avtomat. The Sheet metal stampings from SMGs of the time, the full auto capability was common as were most other features of the AK-47... they were just on other rifles. All he really needed was a low power round to make it work better than the Tokarev or the Federov Avtomat... and that was invented in 1943.
As you point out it takes time to invent so it was probably developed in 1942.


GazB wrote: Quote:
Also 7.62 x 51mm is the reduced size round adopted as standard by NATO

Previously you wrote: Quote:
An FN FAL is an assualt rifle... even with a full power round

WHAT ARE YOU SAYING???

I am saying that the 7.62 x 51mm NATO round was a compromise force upon NATO by the only country to come through the war with money... the 7.62 x 51mm is a .30 06 with a slightly shortened case.


The Leopard was an offshott of the Tiger and Panther series of Panzers. Figures you believe that they should have stayed with the PzKw4!


After the war was over they could have looked at developing more radical tanks... during the war they needed more tanks, not better tanks.


During five days, the gun shot 48 shells over 7 targets.

And how big was the crew for the Dora? How long did it take to build? How many normal sized artillery pieces could have been made for that investment... thousands of men and lots of money and time and materials for a weapon that fires 48 shots.
No wonder the Germans lost the war.


You are a fool. You disagree with something I did not write. SOVIETS AND AMERICANS BENEFITTED - I didn't write the world.


Yes, you didn't write the world... that is why I disagreed with you. You don't actually believe space exploration has only benefitted the US and the Soviets. The miniturisation required by the Americans to fit as much as they could into their rockets is what lead to the computer in front of you. And of course there are many other benefits.


GazB, you are so full of HOT AIR that I think you are just a BLOWPIPE.

Your statements are without reference and purely compulsive.

Not content with trying to disagree with what I have said you choose to try to discredit me.
Interesting that you waste time teaching a fool...

[peoplesliberationarmy]

ak-74.....that gun really good

[TacoDelRio]

I also like the AK-74. It is a marked improvement over the AKM. I enjoy the toxic fumes flying into my face as I fire it, since that compensator helps me with my aim, but not my health.

A crewman from the PRC? :bash: What the hell?

Hooah p-)

[The Raven]

M-14, and derivatives

The Raven
Las Vegas

[He219]

GazB wrote:

OK so if you think the Federov Avtomat that entered service in 1916 was available for use before 1914 when may I ask was the AK-47 available?

Fedorov started the design in 1907. In 1913 he incorporated the 6.5mm Rifle Round and produced the first Avtomat. In December 1916 Russian forces used it in combat against the Germans in WWI. Do not confuse model numbers with issue dates and development types.


V.G.Fedorovu - osnovopolozhniku otechestvennoi shkoly avtomaticheskogo oruzhiya. Predlozhennaya im v 1913 godu vintovka pod patron sobstvennoi konstrukcii kalibra 6,5mm i razrabotannyi na ee baze avtomat postupili na vooruzhenii osoboi komandy, otpravlennoi na front v 1916 godu.
http://www.arms-museum.tula.ru/translit/exposition_new/8.html

http://www.azarms.com/Image2.gif

The AK47 was first designed by Kalashnikov in 1946. The prototype was changed in 1947 and submitted for approval. In 1949 the Red Army approved production but the stamped receivers failed. Not until around 1953-1956 was the third version released to be again changed in 1959 with stamped receiver technology.

After Kalashnikov was injured he designed this weapon that did not win approval:
http://www.cruffler.com/KalashnikovExperimentalSMG.jpg

Kalashnikov Submachinegun, 1942
Image Credit: Nedelin, Alexei, Kalashnikov Arms, Design Military Parade, Moscow, 1987, Page 10

Later he modified his design and won funding:
http://www.cruffler.com/KalashnikovAK46.jpg

Experimental Avtomat of 1946
Image Credit: Nedelin, Alexei, Kalashnikov Arms, Design Military Parade, Moscow, 1987, Page 30

GazB, first you write:

The Federov Avtomat is considered the first attempt to combine the virtues of the battle rifle and the SMG. Making it the first implementation of the assualt rifle concept.

I explain once more that the SMG was not even invented at the time of development of the Avtomat (starting in 1907 and production of the 6.5mm Avtomat in 1913) yet alone be able to be the implemented as a virtue.

Not until the invention of the SMG by the Italians ('Villar Perosa' in 1915) and the first combat use by the German Bergmann MP18 did the SMG become a reality. Hugo Schmeisser invented both the first combat SMG, the MP18 and the first combat Assault Rifle, the MP43. The MP18 was never fielded in combat against the Russians as it was only used after an initial order was placed by the Prussian War Ministry in 1918. Fewer than 10,000 ever reached the front by Armistice Day 'but it's impact was felt' for it to be banned in the Treaty of Versailles.
http://www.seek-and-destroy.de/weapons/bergmannMP18.html

http://207.36.165.81/atoz/graphics/mgun_vperosa.jpg


Considered the world's first genuine sub-machine gun, the Villar Perosa (or VP) was introduced in the Italian army in 1915.

http://www2t.biglobe.ne.jp/~ohige/tsuhan/caw/mp18_bergmann_mg_01.jpg

Bergmann MP18 Gun


GazB, Then you Re-Phrase your suggestion:

The Federov Avtomat was developed with the intention of replacing the standard rifle with a weapon that matched the requirements of an assault rifle

NOW you define the Fedorov Avtomat as matching CURRENT descriptions of an Assault Rifle. You previously developed the statement qualifications yourself...

The MP43 is the first rifle to incorporate the virtues of the SMG, Battle Rifle and light machine gun in it's design premise. Not until the advent of the Italian Fiocchi 9M38 for the Beretta MAB38 did the effectiveness of intermediate cartridges become a reality. The 6.5mm Rifle Round is not considered as a true intermediate cartridge but merely a reduced size fifle round. Specialized rounds had to be developed for the Assault Rifle to become a reality.


The Sturmgewehr 44 made history as the first real assault rifle; in fact, the term "assault rifle" itself is a literal translation of this weapon's designation. Obviously, the concept of the StGw influenced Mikhail Kalashnikov in his development of the famous AK-47 assault rifle (although the AK has a system of it's own right).


Many attempts had been made in several countries including germany during the 1920ies to develop an automatic rifle that combined the characteristics of the submachinegun - a high rate of fire and therefore fire volume - with that of the then usual regular infantry rifle - accuracy and projectile power - while at the same time eliminating the disadvantages of the respective weapon types. Most of these attempts failed, because the conservative authorities did not like the idea or -mostly- because these early weapons tried to use the regular powerful rifle ammunition.
http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/arms/technote/armtech5.htm

http://www.eliteforces.freewire.co.uk/Waffen%20SS%20Text+Images/WSS_109.jpg

The MP44 can be considered as the world's first assault rifle

http://world.guns.ru/assault/mp44.jpg

C.G. Haenel MP-43 Mp-44 Stg.44

GazB wrote:

While they had no SMG in service they knew what a SMG was. In fact many captured weapons were used including Broom handle mauser machine pistols which were so popular that eventually the round the model they used they adopted themselves.

Nuts GazB! Federov had no idea of the SMG when he designed the Avtomat. Broom handle Mauser Machine Pistols??? Automatic Pistols appeared after the Russians were out of the War.

The first attempt came from Germany where the Military Mauser and Luger (1917 model) semi-automatic pistols were fitted with detachable butts and the latter weapon was also fitted with a 32 round snail type magazine. The actions remained semi-automatic, but the effective range was increased considerably by the two handed hold, whilst the cyclic rate of fire would be 40 aimed shots or more per minute. These weapons were introduced late in the first World War and issued to NCOs in machine gun units for close range defence. It was about this time that the Burgmann Muskete appeared in the German Army; it fired automatically, was conventional in design and very similar to many modern models, except for the Luger snail type magazine which proved to be an awkward accessory. The barrel was 7 inches long and similar to the Luger pistol barrel; the complete weapon weighed 9 lbs.
http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/arms/technote/armtech5.htm

GazB wrote:

Almost indistinguishable means "hard to tell apartWouldn't that be ALMOST hard to tell apart???? :bash:

He219 wrote:

as the front end is almost indestinguishable

Do you believe Milling is More Economical than Stamping? Does the guy shooting the AK care if it lasts longer than he will live?

GazB says the Nazis needed more of these:
http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/bilder/panzer4-color.jpg
and less of these:
http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/bilder/tigers-spzrabt502-1944.jpg

GazB wrote:


After the war was over they could have looked at developing more radical tanks... during the war they needed more tanks, not better tanks

What would the Nazis have done with those radical tanks after the war???


Yes, you didn't write the world... that is why I disagreed with you
rofl hahahahaha

GazB, the facts speak for themselves.... Clearly the Federov Avtomat is not the first true Assault Rifle. It may resemble modern interpretations of one though. You defined the design primise for an Assault Rifle yourself -in order for a weapon to be consciously designed for a purpose. Federov continued development of his Avtomat until well into 1925. He even added an aluminum forestock to enhance barrel cooling. It indeed is revolutionary, but not the prototype in context with the Assault Rifle.

To make your argument is hindsight. Federov never thought of it as a replacement for the SMG or squad light machine gun - but as an effective alternative to the rifles of the time. I could attempt to make your argument saying the HoIX was the first Stealth Fighter. It is of no relevance if the principles were not even understood at the time. Look, I might get all fired up, but there is a reason the MP43 is considered the first 'real' assault rifle. The Germans made remarkable thechnological innovations to the benefit of the Victors first and much later the derivatives of those inventions benefitted mankind - like plywood.
It is a good thing that Hitler was his own undoing as a psychopathic micromanager. We are better off - don't you agree on that one?

p-)
He219

[peoplesliberationarmy]

I also like the AK-74. It is a marked improvement over the AKM. I enjoy the toxic fumes flying into my face as I fire it, since that compensator helps me with my aim, but not my health.

A crewman from the PRC? :bash: What the hell?

Hooah p-)
the Ak 74 is easy to use. a bit better than ak47...when you bush fire.

yes...I am a crewman -__-
that image is my photo....in the parade of 1999

[GazB]

Do not confuse model numbers with issue dates and development types.


The Federov Avtomat was field tested in combat in December 1916. Before that it was an experimental weapon.
When talking about weapons I prefer to talk about weapons that are more than just experimental.

BTW a few of your quotes from webpages in previous posts have been interesting... a few of them are word for word verbatim from the book I mentioned some time ago... ie The AK-47 Story by Edward C Ezell.

One paragraph from that not in your quotes states:

Available evidence suggests that Federov decided around 1912 that the standard 7.62 x 54mmR Model 1891 cartridge was too powerful for use in a self loading rifle. To have increased parts life, improved feeding, and better firing control when the rifle was used as a fully automatic weapon, Federov decided that he should use a less powerful cartridge, which would have lower recoil forces and a rimmles cartridge case. After three years additional work, in 1916 and in the midst of the world war Federov unveiled his new rifle to which he gave the name Avtomat.


I explain once more that the SMG was not even invented at the time of development of the Avtomat (starting in 1907 and production of the 6.5mm Avtomat in 1913) yet alone be able to be the implemented as a virtue.


The rifles Federov was designing were designed as an automatic rifle, not as an assault rifle initially. The resulting weapon was an assault rifle. That is why I suggest that the Avtomat was not available for use before WWI as it wasn't a viable weapon ready for service till 1916 when it was field tested.


Specialized rounds had to be developed for the Assault Rifle to become a reality.

Specialised rounds were not a requirement of an assault rifle. The FN FAL is an Assault rifle, as is an AR-10... both used rounds that were considered full power by the users, even if they were less powerful than the rounds the US previously used (ie .30-06).


Automatic Pistols appeared after the Russians were out of the War.

Hahahahhahahahhaha... so I guess the P08 Luger pistol and the American .45 M1911 Browning pistols were bolt action... or the C/96 was made in 1996 and not 1896 and was not called Broom Handled Mauser at all.


Do you believe Milling is More Economical than Stamping? Does the guy shooting the AK care if it lasts longer than he will live?

If you think he will care how much it cost to make, or that stamping it instead of milling it might have meant it was made in 5 hours instead of 9 or 10.
Of course if he got it brand new he might not care... if it is 30 years old and he is handed it he might think about how well it was made.
It might last a whole war, but will it last for 60 years peacetime?

"What would the Nazis have done with those radical tanks after the war??? "

If they had more Panzer 4s instead of wasting time and effort on Panthers and Tigers they might have forced the allies to sue for peace... in other words they might have stayed in power after the war.

"You defined the design primise for an Assault Rifle yourself -in order for a weapon to be consciously designed for a purpose. "

Rubbish. If you want the first weapon designed consciously for the purpose of Assault Rifle then the winner would have been the US's M1 carbine in the full auto model.

The first rifle in service to meet the assault rifle criteria was the Federov Avtomat.


To make your argument is hindsight. Federov never thought of it as a replacement for the SMG or squad light machine gun - but as an effective alternative to the rifles of the time.

And what is an assault rifle? Is it a replacement for a SMG? ...NO. Is it a LMG? Of course not. (If it was then the US BAR would have the honour of first Assault rifle).


but there is a reason the MP43 is considered the first 'real' assault rifle.

The only justification for calling the MP43 the first Assault Rifle was because Hitler first coined the phrase Assault Rifle in naming it. Otherwise most of its features were not new... much the same that the AK-47 was not New either. All were an amalgamation of previous weapons... somehting that you certainly can't say about the Avtomat in the sense that Federov was breaking new ground and finding solutions that couldn't be found by copying neighbours...


It is a good thing that Hitler was his own undoing as a psychopathic micromanager.

Certainly the world is a better place without the likes of Hitler (and Stalin if truth be told). I don't agree with the notion that Hitler made Germany lose the war through micromanagment however... his vacillation between targets in the East obviously was a problem, but often he was made a scapegoat by German generals incapable of accepting they made mistakes too. (Orders not to retreat were blamed for untold losses, yet to retreat in the middle of winter in Russia can be more fatal than enemy action and moving from a known, even if semi prepared position to open areas would have been a mistake in my opinion.)
(Of course Hitler did lose the war with his racist nonsense that resulted in the conquered land in the east remaining hostile to him, when a little bit of attention and treating them well might have lead to the resources and manpower of the east to be at his disposal... not enough to invade the US with but certainly enough to hold europe and take the UK and probably the north of africa as well.)

peoplesliberationarmy

Hello, what vehicle do you crew?

MrSkorotsnoy
"I enjoy the toxic fumes flying into my face as I fire it, since that compensator helps me with my aim, but not my health."

My AK-74 compensator doesn't blow fumes back in my face... how are you holding the rifle? (The guys next to me on the firing line don't like the noise, but have had no problems with fumes... :-) )

[peoplesliberationarmy]

GazB

I am a tank crew....

[He219]

GazB wrote:
In fact many captured weapons were used including Broom handle mauser machine pistols
He219 wrote:
Nuts GazB! Federov had no idea of the SMG when he designed the Avtomat. Broom handle Mauser Machine Pistols??? Automatic Pistols appeared after the Russians were out of the War.
Quote:
The first attempt came from Germany where the Military Mauser and Luger (1917 model) semi-automatic pistols were fitted with detachable butts and the latter weapon was also fitted with a 32 round snail type magazine. The actions remained semi-automatic, but the effective range was increased considerably by the two handed hold, whilst the cyclic rate of fire would be 40 aimed shots or more per minute. These weapons were introduced late in the first World War and issued to NCOs in machine gun units for close range defence. It was about this time that the Burgmann Muskete appeared in the German Army; it fired automatically, was conventional in design and very similar to many modern models, except for the Luger snail type magazine which proved to be an awkward accessory. The barrel was 7 inches long and similar to the Luger pistol barrel; the complete weapon weighed 9 lbs.
http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/arms/technote/armtech5.htm


AUTOMATIC as in MACHINE PISTOLS, referencing the above article. Isn't AUTOMATIC a MISNOMER for a Semi-Automatic Pistol. A MACHINE PISTOL is certainly AUTOMATIC though......

GazB wrote:
The rifles Federov was designing were designed as an automatic rifle, not as an assault rifle initially
Are you telling me that subsequently after having already designed and built it - he then designed it to be an Assault Rifle?

Do you really believe that after incorporation of the 6.5mm cartridge in 1913 (to counter the effects of automatic fire receiver falures with the previous 7.62 x 54mm round) that this action alone qualifies as a 'conscious design goal' in developing a weapon with the virtues of a SMG, the use as a Battle Field Rifle and Fire Power of a Light Machine Gun?

GazB wrote:
The Federov Avtomat is considered the first attempt to combine the virtues of the battle rifle and the SMG. Making it the first implementation of the assualt rifle concept

Again, you are arguing CURRENT INTERPRETATIONS - and that is the issue at hand. The Fedorov Avtomat may meet current interpretations but was not the conscious development of the Assault Rifle. To end this senseless debate on who was first and what is what, look up this site which I believe is the most impartial explanation that I believe both YOU and I CAN agree with:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

Or course you did re-phrase your previous statements in your last posting..

GazB wrote:
The first rifle in service to meet the assault rifle criteria was the Federov Avtomat.We established that this is TRUE to CURRENT interpretations only.

Previously the issue of debate...
GazB wrote:
The Federov Avtomat is considered the first attempt to combine the virtues of the battle rifle and the SMG. Making it the first implementation of the assualt rifle concept
This is FALSE because it wasn't the ATTEMPT but the EFFECT under CURRENT interpretations.

This entire discussion started with this statement...

GazB wrote:
But what was the main driving force behind such German weapons and can they really be considered the pioneers of the assault rifle concept?
Yes, and I do believe the previous link gave light to that question. The definition of the 'Modern Assault Rifle' is a weapon specifically designed for that purpose and not by chance. Thus, your assault rifle concept. And the true pioneer in OUTSIDE of the Assault Rifle Concept turns out to be the Select Fire Italian Cei-Rigotti and not the Federov Avtomat.


The Cei-Rigotti automatic rifle is an Italian gas operated rifle developed in the 1890s. It takes a 6.5 mm round from a 25-round box. It has a muzzle velocity of 730 meters-per-second and is sighted to 1400 meters. The cyclic rate is 900 rounds-per-minute.

p-)
He219

[Kish4747]

i would have to say usas 12 gauge

[GazB]

Isn't AUTOMATIC a MISNOMER for a Semi-Automatic Pistol.

Automatic is often used to mean Semi-automatic, and in relation to pistols is used more often than Full-automatic. Automatic can mean either.


Are you telling me that subsequently after having already designed and built it - he then designed it to be an Assault Rifle?

No, I mean if you look at the design... it is a standard automatic rifle, but it also has a pistol grip mounted just in front of the magazine... so it can be fired like a conventional rifle or from an underarm position like a SMG in full auto mode... what does that suggest to you?


Do you really believe that after incorporation of the 6.5mm cartridge in 1913 (to counter the effects of automatic fire receiver falures with the previous 7.62 x 54mm round) that this action alone qualifies as a 'conscious design goal' in developing a weapon with the virtues of a SMG, the use as a Battle Field Rifle and Fire Power of a Light Machine Gun?

The use of a reduced power cartridge makes the weapon a better implementation of an assault rifle but is not a deciding factor.

An AR-10 is an Assault Rifle with a round used in MGs and sniper rifles. Those MGs and Sniper Rifles, although automatic loaders are not assault rifles.

"The Federov Avtomat is considered the first attempt to combine the virtues of the battle rifle and the SMG. Making it the first implementation of the assualt rifle concept"

It was to be issued to replace a bolt action rifle in service. It was to be used at medium range in single shot fire and at short range in bursts. Without stating it is to replace the battle rifle and a SMG if we had one in service that is as close to intention to create an Assault Rifle as I need.


And the true pioneer in OUTSIDE of the Assault Rifle Concept turns out to be the Select Fire Italian Cei-Rigotti and not the Federov Avtomat.


It is quite possible that the Cei-Rigotti may have been the inspiriation of many a weapon, but if you re-read properly what you state as being the origin or the whole discussion my comment:

But what was the main driving force behind such German weapons and can they really be considered the pioneers of the assault rifle concept?

Was in response to your claim that germany invented the assault rifle in WWII.
As I said, and I stand by it, nothing is created in a vaccuum. The Gemans certainly studied Soviet automatic weapons and were impressed with the designs. Though widely criticised for their reliability German opinions of Tokarev rifles seem to be that they were rather highly regarded as long as they were properly looked after. (Soviet treatment of their kit left something to be desired.. due largely to lack of training, and anything no soldier proof was frowned upon).

peoplesliberationarmy
May I ask what type?

[RealUltimatePower]

I like the OICW. But, one question, is everyone going to have the HE launcher, or just some members of the squad while everyone else has just the 5.56 rifle? And also its a cool weapon cause it resembles the carbine in the Aliens movies lol.

[GazB]

From what I have read the OICW will eventually replace the M16/M203 combination in US units.
Other soldiers will continue to use whatever they are using now.

[He219]

GazB you crack me up! You would even twist your own words to support your notion of Russian superiority. Your fondness of Soviet weapons is clear from your posts.


Without stating it is to replace the battle rifle and a SMG if we had one in service that is as close to intention to create an Assault Rifle as I need.

What are you saying? Nice Grammar bud... 'If we had one in service' hehehe...as close to intention...as I need, hehehe (ie to suit your needs) Are you a Russian in NZ or are you a Kiwi full of Soviet Bull?
What intention - To develop an Automatic Battle Rifle? The first SMG on the Battlefield was the German Bergmann MP18 - after the Russians were out of the war. It's either an Automatic Battle Rifle or a SMG until the integration of the two with a Specific Intermediate Range Cartridge.


The rifles Federov was designing were designed as an automatic rifle, not as an assault rifle initially

The Russkies didn't have SMG's or an Assault Rifle Concept in 1916. An intermediate round was not invented until '38 (by the Italians). The Fedorov Avtomat is an Automatic Battle Rifle and the AK47 is an Assault Rifle, period.


Was in response to your claim that germany invented the assault rifle in WWII.

I said they PIONEERED the concept. Hitler himself coined the terminology Sturmgewehr or Assault Rifle that you whould have us believing the Russkies developed first. The Germans were the first to integrate all previously known Automatic Battle Rifle and Sub Machine Gun techonologies with a custom intermediate round to develop the MP43.


It was to be used at medium range in single shot fire and at short range in bursts.

I would say that the FA16 was designed to fire a Single Shot at Long Range and Fully Automatic at medium to short ranges. Did the FA16 have a provision for a bayonet?

Using the FA16 in close quarters is a far cry to the compact nature of a SMG or the MP43. Do you consider the M14 to be an Assault Rifle too or was it also an Automatic Battle Rifle eventually replaced by a true Assault Rifle, the M16? Where does the one piece wooden stock come into play?


The Gemans certainly studied Soviet automatic weapons and were impressed with the designs.

They were impressed by the reliability and simplicity of the PPSh. Hugo Schmeisser (developer of the MP18) didn't have to hold hands with Kalashnikov, Tokarev or Simonov to develop the MP43. Soviets studying German designs is another issue though.


it is a standard automatic rifle, but it also has a pistol grip mounted just in front of the magazine... so it can be fired like a conventional rifle or from an underarm position like a SMG in full auto mode... what does that suggest to you?

What the heck is an Underarm Position? A quintessential 'Burp Gun' like the MP5 is fired while shouldered in order to ensure proper target aquisiton. I could'nt imagine anyone firing a Battle Rifle in Full Automatic from the 'Hip' in combat unless you are GazB!

rofl
He219

[GazB]

Quote:
Without stating it is to replace the battle rifle and a SMG if we had one in service that is as close to intention to create an Assault Rifle as I need.


What are you saying? Nice Grammar bud...

Well I assumed you'd understand it, but here it is in as plain a terms as I can make it.

Without Federov actually stating that the Avtomat was designed to replace the battle rifle and to meet the role of short range automatic firepower that Germany met with a SMG, while the US met the close range firepower role with the combat shotgun, and the British and New Zealanders met with two pistols and plenty of handgrenades the design of the weapon he produced met the requirements of short range full auto firepower with longer range accuracy and power.

"An intermediate round was not invented until '38 (by the Italians). "

To suggest that the 6.5mm Arisaka round wasn't an intermediate power cartridge is rubbish. It pushed a small caliber relatively light round at about 666m/s, which is slower than the M1943 round the AK series used.
The standard round in use by the Russians fired a heavier 308 calibre bullet at about 840m/s. Rather significant difference.

"I said they PIONEERED the concept."

How could they have pioneered the concept? Federov pioneered the concept by jumping from having a battle rifle and no smg in service but a need for something like an SMG to an assault rifle that could fill both roles in one design.

"Hitler himself coined the terminology Sturmgewehr or Assault Rifle that you whould have us believing the Russkies developed first."

Interesting Logic... Hitler names a rifle and then retrospectively gets credit for all previous weapons that fit the terminology.

So because the Russians design and introduce into service a weapon that meets the criteria for being called an assault rifle, but don't call it an assault rifle then it isn't one????

I guess the Wright Brothers can't have been the first to fly a heavier than air aircraft because they didn't come up with the name "aeroplane".

"I would say that the FA16 was designed to fire a Single Shot at Long Range and Fully Automatic at medium to short ranges. Did the FA16 have a provision for a bayonet? "

You can say what you like, but the 6.5mm round used would have been completely ineffectual at ranges over 400m (I am talking accuracy here... it had a low muzzle velocity and a light bullet that was effected by wind).
In full auto the target had better be in the immediate area or it is quite safe from aimed fire.
It was never fitted with a bipod, though later models designed for the support role were... they needed them as they had large heavy waterfilled jackets over their barrels.

BTW The SVD has a bayonnete... is it an assault Rifle?


Using the FA16 in close quarters is a far cry to the compact nature of a SMG or the MP43.

Hahahahahahahaha... An MP43 is only 6cm shorter than an FA16. It is also more than half a kg heavier than an FA16. Really handy.

"Where does the one piece wooden stock come into play?"

What difference does the one piece stock make? At the time it was made one piece stocks were the norm. If you are going to say that because the US armed forces changed from a weapon that used a one piece stock to a plastic rabbit gun (The AR-10 was a much better weapon) that everyone must do the same is a joke.
The M3 carbine uses a one piece stock, an intermediate cartridge, and was capable of full auto fire.

The Steyr doesn't use a Stamped metal receiver, nor does the FN FAL.

"Hugo Schmeisser (developer of the MP18) didn't have to hold hands with Kalashnikov, Tokarev or Simonov to develop the MP43. Soviets studying German designs is another issue though. "

Ohhh, I see. The Germans don't copy, but the Soviets do.

"What the heck is an Underarm Position? A quintessential 'Burp Gun' like the MP5 is fired while shouldered in order to ensure proper target aquisiton. I could'nt imagine anyone firing a Battle Rifle in Full Automatic from the 'Hip' in combat unless you are GazB! "

You are slow, I was right.
How many MP5 SMGs did the Russians use in WWI?

WTF does Western practises with burp guns now have to do with the design of a weapon used in WWI?

Shouldered weapons and proper target aquisition is fine if you are a spec op about to free some hostages, what has it to do with clearing trenches with auto fire during WWI? How many Russian conscripts reach the training standards of Spec Ops troops?

Analysis from the various wars they have fought has shown the Russians and Soviets that the quality of individual marksmanship for the average conscript is rather low. The time taken to raise that quality would mean conscription being 10 years... unlikely. (Remember in a volunteer army you can expect most recruits to have some interest in guns and certainly not fear them like some accountants or office clarks might...)
The result was that they tailor their tactics around firepower of the masses and the use of MGs and automatic rifles to do the actual killing.
Most soldiers were equipped with a bullet hose, when automatic weapons became available. In WWII that was PPSH SMGs mostly, with a few men in each unit with a long range killing weapon like a bolt action, or a LMG.
In their modern army any conscript with some shooting aptitude is armed with an SVD and given a bit more training, and to compensate for the lack of long range firepower LMGs and MMGs are widely issued. AKs make the bad guys keep their heads down while the SVD and MGs do most of the killing.
This philosophy has changed since then with accuracy becoming important and ammo manufacturers making more accurate ammo (previous ammo was designed to be fired in bursts and with no intent for accuracy).

[REMOV]

An intermediate round was not invented until '38 (by the Italians).
Ekhm... it isn't true.

The earliest known incarnation of the intermediate cartridge was an 8 x 42,5 mm round made by Rheinmetall-Borig in 1927. This round feeds self-loading rifle Gewehr 28. Next was an 8 x 46mm round manufactured by Rheinisch Westäflische Spregstoff AG (RWS) in 1934. This was followed in 1935 by a 7,75x40mm cartridge from Gustav Genschow & Co. (GeCo). Testing of the GeCo 7,75mm round continued until 1939, using a series of specially designed first German assault rifle, created by H. Vollmer called M35 or Apparat 35. http://www.remov.com/bullpup/__vollmer.jpg
In 1939 both the round and the rifle were rejected. One interesting thing, though - this round real dimensions were nearly the same to... Russian 7,62 x 39mm M1943 ammunition. It's not a secret that Russians bought this GeCo round in late 30's.

Next one was 7 x 39mm round from Deutsche Waffen u. Munitionsfabriken AG (DWM). This round was originally developed for the Luftwaffe for an experimental Bergmann machine gun. Despite this, it was tested in an experimental Walther assault rifle, that was submitted to the government for testing in 1937 and 1938. (The same round was also tested in 1943 by Mauser in the experimental Gerat 06H machine carbine.) http://www.remov.com/bullpup/__walther.jpg

In 1938, the Heereswaffenamt bucked the General Staff, and issued a a contract to the Polte Armaturen und Maschinenfabrik AG in Magdeburg for the development of an acceptable intermediate cartridge. The new round - 7,92 x 33mm (7.92 Kurz Patrone or Pistolenpatrone 43)- was accepted in 1941.

[according to Peter R. Senich, "The German Assault Rifle 1935-1945"]

[REMOV]

To suggest that the 6.5mm Arisaka round wasn't an intermediate power cartridge is rubbish. It pushed a small caliber relatively light round at about 666m/s, which is slower than the M1943 round the AK series used.
Round classification depends on round energy not velocity. Of course, there're some problems with classification, but generally intermediate rounds energy is in the 1250-2500J range, depending on the calibre. 6,5mm Arisaka bullet has 2600J, and it's consider as a weak rifle round. Both in Russian and my country military terminology. So, 6,5mm Avtomat Fedorova is a battle rifle.

[gregb]

The oicw , yes it is in the prototype stage, but we can assume that the basic shape will stay the same and the weight isnt gonna drop by that much , unless we back engineer some alien space craft and find the recipe for some crazy new lightweight material. So i think SEI. can make a judgement on the weapon Past , Present and Future. :oops:

[He219]

REMOV, I am humbled. Excellent presentation of facts!

p-)
He219

[He219]

GazB wrote:

I guess the Wright Brothers can't have been the first to fly a heavier than air aircraft because they didn't come up with the name "aeroplane".

Wrong again. The Wright Brothers were the first to fly a POWERED aircraft.


The M3 carbine uses a one piece stock, an intermediate cartridge, and was capable of full auto fire.

Wrong again. The M3 is commonly known as the 'Grease Gun' and fires a .45 ACP round. It is a SMG made of stamped and machined parts and has no wooden 'one-piece' stock.


Analysis from the various wars they have fought has shown the Russians and Soviets that the quality of individual marksmanship for the average conscript is rather low. The time taken to raise that quality would mean conscription being 10 years...

Probably why Soviets were slaughtered wholesale in WWII...
Russians were sent charging in human waves - many without weapons and told to pick one up along the way - yet alone know how to wield a SMG most effectively by shouldering one.


To suggest that the 6.5mm Arisaka round wasn't an intermediate power cartridge is rubbish

It is still a dedicated rifle round nonetheless.


If you are going to say that because the US armed forces changed from a weapon that used a one piece stock to a plastic rabbit gun (The AR-10 was a much better weapon) that everyone must do the same is a joke.

Wrong again GazB. The M14 was replaced by the M16. The AR-10 is an M16 design chambered for a .308 round.


REMOV, be aware that GazB might take offense at all of your German references. He probably would'nt want to believe the 7.62x39mm round was based on one bought from GeCo in late 30's...


Ohhh, I see. The Germans don't copy, but the Soviets do.

REMOV, do you classify 7.62mm NATO chambered Rifles (like the FN FAL, M14, AR-10, G3 etc.) as being Modern Battle Rifles (with the capability to fire either Semi, Full Auto or Both) because of the energy characteristics for that round (or larger ones)?

Thank you for your valued input!

p-)
He219

[REMOV]

The M3 carbine uses a one piece stock, an intermediate cartridge, and was capable of full auto fire.
Wrong again. The M3 is commonly known as the 'Grease Gun' and fires a .45 ACP round. It is a SMG made of stamped and machined parts and has no wooden 'one-piece' stock.
Ekhm... He219, GazB is right.

The US Carbine, Caliber .30 M3, was an M2 with suitable mountings prepared on the receiver to take various models of infra-red night-sighting devices (infrared 4X "Snooper Scope" sniperscope). No open or conventional sights were provided, and the IR carbine mounted an M3 flash hider, a simpler design than that for the M1C Garand. The M3 carbine, was produced in limited numbers as a semi-prototype. Only about 2100 were manufactured compared to 5,510,000 M1 carbines, 150,000 M1A1 carbines and 570,000 M2 carbines. M3 was of course selectible for either semi- or fully-automatic fire. M3 was adopted 16 August 1945.
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/images/m2m3.jpg
(M2 top, and M3 bottom)
Source: http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/m2m3.htm

BTW - assault rifle with one piece stock is for example American 5,56mm Ruger Mini 14 or Chinese 7,62mm Type 63.

The M14 was replaced by the M16. The AR-10 is an M16 design chambered for a .308 round.
Inveresely: AR-15 is an AR-10 design chambered (and modificated) for a 5,56mm round. AR-10 was the first model of battle rifle made by E. Stoner.


REMOV, be aware that GazB might take offense at all of your German references. He probably would'nt want to believe the 7.62x39mm round was based on one bought from GeCo in late 30's...
You know, that's only a speculation, but there ars many similarities. In my opinion Russian 7,62mm M1943 was modificated German 7,75mm GeCo round.

Ohhh, I see. The Germans don't copy, but the Soviets do.
Boys, relax. Both Germans and Russian copy some product each other. An 7,62mm AK-47 it isn't a copy of a 7,92mm MKb 42(H) (the first German mass produced assault rifle), but I'm sure Kalashnikov knows the German design. Nevertheless both assault rifles have different internal construction.

REMOV, do you classify 7.62mm NATO chambered Rifles (like the FN FAL, M14, AR-10, G3 etc.) as being Modern Battle Rifles (with the capability to fire either Semi, Full Auto or Both) because of the energy characteristics for that round (or larger ones)?
Of course! Both 7,62 x 51mm (7,62mm NATO) and 7,62 x 63mm (.30-06 Springfield) are rifle rounds due to their muzzle energy (ca. 3300J).

BTW - The first modern battle rifle mass manufactured was German 7,92mm FG-42. An idea of battle rifles was to produced scaled down, light weight, accurate both in semi and auto, automatic rifle (like BAR M1918 or Bren M1937). Destined to fail, because muzzle energy of rifle round was too high, and weapon was uncapable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder. That's why, among other things, British battle rifle a L1A1 has only semi fire capability, and FG-42 and rifle round 7,92 x 57mm was replaced by Mkb 42 and 7,92 x 33mm intermediate cartridge.

[He219]

I stand corrected. Thanks REMOV!

p-)
He219

[martinexsquaddie]

how about the 7mm round used by the enfield en the first bullpup dumped in favour of the FN rifle

[REMOV]

how about the 7mm round used by the enfield en the first bullpup dumped in favour of the FN rifle
Both British EM-2 as well as first model of Belgian FN FAL were created in bullpup design ;)

(7mm assault rifle EM-2)
http://www.remov.com/bullpup/_EM-2(300)BW.jpg
(7mm assault rifle FN FAL)
http://www.remov.com/bullpup/_FNFAL(300)BW.jpg

And both were feeded by English .280 (7 x 43mm, muzzle energy ca. 2300J) intermediate round.

EM-2 was approved by British Army as Rifle, Automatic, caliber .280, Number 9 Mark 1 in 1951. But in 1953 Americans forced all NATO members to accept their service rifle round T65 or 7,62 x 51mm as standard NATO ammunition. So, owing to use powerful rifle bullet bullpup design was rejected (bullpup design in automatic rifle has got a sense ONLY with intermediate or weak round), and UK accepted and produced local variant (L1A1) of Belgian second FN FAL version.

[GazB]

Round classification depends on round energy not velocity. Of course, there're some problems with classification, but generally intermediate rounds energy is in the 1250-2500J range, depending on the calibre. 6,5mm Arisaka bullet has 2600J, and it's consider as a weak rifle round. Both in Russian and my country military terminology. So, 6,5mm Avtomat Fedorova is a battle rifle.


I disagree. It uses a round designed for a battle rifle, but the round used does not define the weapon... or is a SMG a pistol?
Does a SMG need to use a pistol round to be a SMG?

A 9 gramme bullet or about 150 grains at 666m/s from the Federov barrel compares very much to a just under 8 gramme bullet at 123 grain at 710m/s from an AK-47 in my opinion.

The difference between the size of the case between the 5.56mm reduced power round and the Arisaka (5mm) is less than the difference between the 5.56mm round and the AK round (6mm).

The reduced power was not as important as the change from rimmed to semi rimmed ammo, but the significant reduction in power from a 180 grain (11.6 gramme) bullet at about 850m/s to the Arisaka round is enough to warrant calling it a reduced power cartridge.

A battle rifle round is often also used in MMGs and LMGs as well.
How can it be a battle rifle round if MMGs and LMGs can use it?

The Federov Avtomat is designed to be used as a battle rifle in single shot mode and in full auto for close range firepower. This makes it an assault rifle in my opinion.
Whether it is a good implemetation of an assault rifle is a different question, but it is not designed to meet the LMG role of unit support weapon... it is designed for short range firepower and medium range accuracy and power. That means assault rifle in my book.


"REMOV, be aware that GazB might take offense at all of your German references. He probably would'nt want to believe the 7.62x39mm round was based on one bought from GeCo in late 30's..."

During the period before WWII the Germans and Soviets worked together on many military products... so that the Germans could avoid the Versai (spelling) treaty. One of the projects they were known to be working on was reduced power rifle cartridges. This suggests that the GeCo round might have been designed with the assistance of the Soviets, perhaps even in the Soviet Union. The Soviets have made mention of pre WWII small calibre reduced power rounds.
The soviets had a policy of standardisation for production... unlike the Germans. This meant that a tank like the T-34 was standardised and used after it was no longer the best vehicle available... but was available in large numbers and its problems largely cured and was reliable.
The soviets were unlikely to introduce a new rifle round near the start of the war even if it was fully ready for service. The cost of creating new factories to make it plus the new barrel sizes (for a small calibre) let alone designing new weapons to use it effectively made it not an option. The production facilities and existing stocks of 7.62 ammo made a change of calibre uneconomic and potentially fatal... the weapons of the time were adequate if not exceptional, a change in 41 to a different calibre would have meant neither the new weapons would be available in numbers, nor would previous weapons be available either. (Germany encountered this problem with tanks). Later in 1943 when the pressure of production was lower the M1943 was created... using existing barrel calibres. The first weapon designed to use the M1943 round looked like a scaled down PTRS-41 anti tank rifle. It was a very conservative weapon and may have been a politically motivated decision to appease Simonov... as his automatic rifles were shown to have been better and cheaper to make than the Tokarevs that were adopted.
Much later when the West introduced a small calibre the 5.45mm round was introduced... it may have been the round the germans and soviets were working on pre war. But then seeing as I am blindly anti German and Blindly pro the Soviet union I guess I shouldn't even suggest that.


"6,5mm Arisaka bullet has 2600J, and it's consider as a weak rifle round. "

Compared to the 7.62 x 54R it was a reduced power round that was semi rimmed and therefore better suited to automatic rifles.

"Wrong again. The Wright Brothers were the first to fly a POWERED aircraft. "

If you are going to be pedantic then you are wrong too. There were several balloons that had engines to give them directional control.

"Probably why Soviets were slaughtered wholesale in WWII... "

The Soviets died in large numbers because the Germans treated them as bad as they did the Jews. At least 5 million Soviet soldiers went into captivity... less than 1 million survived. Most were worked to death, without food or clothing.
That same Nazi ideology of course also cost Germany the war, and why the Russians had so much fun in Germany at the end of the war and in the immediate post war period.

"Russians were sent charging in human waves - many without weapons and told to pick one up along the way - yet alone know how to wield a SMG most effectively by shouldering one. "

Now you are confusing WWI with WWII. In WWI most Russian weapons were foriegn made and investment in the arms industry was always inadequate... the same could be said of many other countries of the time of course.
By WWII the Soviets were strategically self suficient in small arms.

"It is still a dedicated rifle round nonetheless. "

Yes, assault rifles are still rifles you know...

"Wrong again GazB. The M14 was replaced by the M16. The AR-10 is an M16 design chambered for a .308 round. "

No, the AR-10 predates the AR-15... and the AR-15 is what became known as the M16. The AR-15 is a small calibre version of the AR-10.

The AR-10 is also a much better weapon than the AR-15 but politics got in the way as usual.

[REMOV]

I disagree. It uses a round designed for a battle rifle, but the round used does not define the weapon... or is a SMG a pistol?
Does a SMG need to use a pistol round to be a SMG?
And this is a very interesting question, because of different classification system in Eastern and Western Bloc (or ex-Bloc to be precise).

In Russian personal firearms classification (also in Polish, and AFAIR in German) the round uses DEFINES the weapon. Naturally, the combat use and dimensions are also taking into consideration, but they're less important.
In American firearms classification lead roles are: weapon dimensions, combat use and the 3rd place is a round.

So AKS-74U is the submachine gun in the West and the (short) assault rifle in the East, as well as all short barreled versions of normal assault rifles (e.g. Bofors AK5D, kbk wz.96 Beryl, HK53 or G36K). Naturally, there're lots of problems with such division. For example: 9mm Steyr AUG ammo is a submachine gun (both In West and East), but what is the same dimension short barrel 5,56mm Steyr AUG? An assault rifle or also submachine gun? Eastern classification has no problem - it's a submachine gun, but Western? What is more important - dimensions, use or round?

So IMHO Eastern weapon classification is better and precise, but maybe it's only my habit ;)

But, lets back to heart of the matter. What is Fedorov Avtomat? Russian before WWII treated this weapon as... very light machine gun. But due to modern classification FA is a battle rife capable only of full automatic fire.

A 9 gramme bullet or about 150 grains at 666m/s from the Federov barrel compares very much to a just under 8 gramme bullet at 123 grain at 710m/s from an AK-47 in my opinion.
The difference between the size of the case between the 5.56mm reduced power round and the Arisaka (5mm) is less than the difference between the 5.56mm round and the AK round (6mm).
Bullet weight, velocity, size of case don't matter - muzzle energy both in the West and East is the basis of the round classification, and 6,5mm Arisaka IS a rifle round. Weak rifle round, I must admit, but still rifle cartridge. Sorry, GazB, but automatic rifle uses rifle rounds is a battle rifle, regardless of fact that appeals to You or not.

The reduced power was not as important as the change from rimmed to semi rimmed ammo, but the significant reduction in power from a 180 grain (11.6 gramme) bullet at about 850m/s to the Arisaka round is enough to warrant calling it a reduced power cartridge.
Arisaka was a Japanese round, and Japanese are (or maybe "were" in those days) gererally shorter, smaller and lighter than Europeans. So, their rifles was smaller, and the ammo was weaker than other rounds to enable them carry and use of their weapons.
So, if You want called Arisaka "a reduced power cartridge" I cannot keep You to do this, but remeber that both Russians and Japaneses had (and still have) different approach to this round than You have ;)

A battle rifle round is often also used in MMGs and LMGs as well.
How can it be a battle rifle round if MMGs and LMGs can use it?
Ekhm... excuse me, but I can't understand Your words (maybe above should be "can't use it"?).

For example FN FAL is a battle rifle and uses the same ammunition (7,62 x 51mm) as MMG FN MAG58 (M240 or L7A2) and M60 and also LMG FN FALO and LMG HK11E.

The 6,5 x 51mm Arisaka round was used by Ariska rifle M38, LMG Type 11 (Taisho 11) and Type 96 and HMG Type 3 (Taisho 3) and... Russian Avtomat Fedorova so-called "battle rifle".

6,5mm LMG Type96
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/images/japlight.jpg

6,5mm HMG Type 3 (Taisho 3)
http://member.nifty.ne.jp/takixxx/3HMG.JPG


The Federov Avtomat is designed to be used as a battle rifle in single shot mode and in full auto for close range firepower. This makes it an assault rifle in my opinion.
FA was designed as... very light MG. Originally it wasn't capable of single fire, only few subsequent versions had capability of single- and auto fire mode. If you assume modern classification system AF is a battle rifle, undoubtedly.

Whether it is a good implemetation of an assault rifle is a different question, but it is not designed to meet the LMG role of unit support weapon... it is designed for short range firepower and medium range accuracy and power. That means assault rifle in my book.
Excuse me, GazB, but what is a "battle rifle" in your book? ;) The only difference between battle rifle and assault rifle is ammunition - the first uses rifle cartridge, the second - intermediate cartridge. Both have capabilites to single and auto fire mode. Both are desiged as single soldier standard weapon. Tell me, GazB, where are (except rounds) differences between battle rifle and assault rifle?

so that the Germans could avoid the Versai (spelling) treaty.
Versailles.

The first weapon designed to use the M1943 round looked like a scaled down PTRS-41 anti tank rifle. It was a very conservative weapon and may have been a politically motivated decision to appease Simonov... as his automatic rifles were shown to have been better and cheaper to make than the Tokarevs that were adopted.
In Your opinion a SKS (the first SLR designed to 7,62 x 39mm ammo) looks like "scaled down" PTRS-41? I have the impression that You mixed up 7,62 x 54mmR AWS-36 with 7,62 x 39mm SKS-45.

"6,5mm Arisaka bullet has 2600J, and it's consider as a weak rifle round. "
Compared to the 7.62 x 54R it was a reduced power round that was semi rimmed and therefore better suited to automatic rifles.
You're right, but both were designed in late 1800s, when nobody thinks about using it in automatic rifles. Arisaka 6,5 x 51mm was introduced in 1897 than modificated in 1905, and Mosin 7,62 x 54mm in 1891 and modificated in 1908.
BTW - 7,62 x 54mmR is still used in... MMGs (PK/PKS).

[He219]

... it is designed for short range firepower and medium range accuracy and power.

The 6.5x50SR Arisaka combined moderate recoil with good long-range performance.


6,5mm Arisaka bullet has 2600J, and it's consider as a weak rifle round.


Assault rifles are designed around a cartridge intermediate in power between pistol and full-power rifle rounds; in practice, around the 1,250-2,500j range depending on the calibre.

Traditional "full power" military rifle/MG cartridges such as the .303", the .30-06, the 7.92x57 and the 7.62x51 NATO typically fire 10-12g bullets at 750-850 m/s, and developing around 3,000-4,000 joules.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

You definately can destinguish rifle rounds as being either intermetiate or long range cartridges. Intermediate cartridges define the modern Assault Rifle.


The Federov Avtomat is designed to be used as a battle rifle in single shot mode and in full auto for close range firepower. This makes it an assault rifle in my opinion

A Battle Rifle in Single Shot, an Assault Rifle in Full Automatic? Sounds like a Fully Automatic Battle Rifle to me.


The soviets had a policy of standardisation for production... unlike the Germans.
Soviets had a policy of mass production. The Germans definately standardized rifle round production. The MP43/Stg44 shortened the usual 7.92x57 K98 rifle/MG case to 33mm, loading a lighter bullet at a reduced velocity. Keeping the same calibre was a matter of production convenience. It had previously been calculated that a 7mm calibre would be ideal. Germans may have developed many forms of new weapons but standadisation is common with respect to ammunition.


During the period before WWII the Germans and Soviets worked together on many military products... so that the Germans could avoid the Versai (spelling) treaty. One of the projects they were known to be working on was reduced power rifle cartridges. This suggests that the GeCo round might have been designed with the assistance of the Soviets, perhaps even in the Soviet Union. The Soviets have made mention of pre WWII small calibre reduced power rounds.

That is the Treaty of Versailles. Im am not too familiar with collaborative efforts prior to WWII. What are those 'many military projects'? I thought the Communists and Nazi's were arch-enemies politically speaking?


I guess the Wright Brothers can't have been the first to fly a heavier than air aircraft because they didn't come up with the name "aeroplane".

"Wrong again. The Wright Brothers were the first to fly a POWERED aircraft. "

If you are going to be pedantic then you are wrong too. There were several balloons that had engines to give them directional control.

The first heavier-than-air aircraft to be built and flown, Sir George Cayley's Coachman Carrier (1853), was a glider. I wasn't talking about aerostats either. I like pedantics!


The Soviets died in large numbers because the Germans treated them as bad as they did the Jews. At least 5 million Soviet soldiers went into captivity... less than 1 million survived. Most were worked to death, without food or clothing.

The Nazis definately considered many to be Sub-Humans. Stalin's purges, Gulags and Sharashkas alone killed more than that. Only a trickle of German POW's returned after the war from Russian captivity. Of the 91,000 German survivors of the Battle of Stalingrad alone, fewer than 5,000 would return through the mid 50's. Approximately 21 million Soviets, among them 7 million civilians, were killed in the German invasion of the Soviet Union. If they were so well equipped and held the numerical advantage, how is it that so many were killed?



If the SKS45 looks like this...
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Heavy/PTRS-41.jpg

...then the front end of an SKS is ALMOST indistinguishable from the front end of an AK47!

p-)
He219

[REMOV]

Im am not too familiar with collaborative efforts prior to WWII. What are those 'many military projects'?
For example tanks (http://www.militarygameronline.com/Panzer/panzer1a.htm) - Grosstraktor or Neubaufahrzeug, planes, equipment http://www.yale.edu/rusarch/tanks.html:

259 individual documents cover all aspects of the Red Army's collaboration with the Reichswehr. The materials range from 1918 to 1938, but the vast majority date from the period between Rapallo and Hitler's rise to power, 1922 to 1933. They include materials on German-Soviet trade, exchanges of military missions, and technical assistance. Most of the documents are only a few pages in length, though some are over one hundred pages long. Most are in Russian, but there are some in German. Click here (http://www.yale.edu/rusarch/trgva.html) for an annotated list of documents.

I thought the Communists and Nazi's were arch-enemies politically speaking?
Yes and not, they were some kind of "best enemies or mortal friends". Russia and Germany trying to make use of each other. Germany had a know-how, Russia had a possibilities and a hunger. Both countries were isolated, both has the same enemies, so co-operated. Check this (http://www.geocities.com/weiwen_sg/NaziSovietRelations.htm) out or grim evidence of their cooperation - Molotov Ribbentrop Treaty (http://sorrel.humboldt.edu/~rescuers/book/Makuch/molrib.html).

[He219]

Thanks REMOV. The pragmastic approach to Soviet-Weimar relations was definately symbiotic. The Soviets gained technological material and expertise whereas the Germans found an open market along with an ability to circumvent Versaille Treaty obligations.

p-)
He219

[GazB]

"So IMHO Eastern weapon classification is better and precise, but maybe it's only my habit "

"So AKS-74U is the submachine gun in the West and the (short) assault rifle in the East, as well as all short barreled versions of normal assault rifles (e.g. Bofors AK5D, kbk wz.96 Beryl, HK53 or G36K)."

I disagree with these classifications. The purpose of an assault rifle is to combine the virtues of a SMG and a Battle Rifle and try to minimise their weaknesses. The main virtue of the SMG is close range firepower, though it is also compact and lightweight. Its main fault is lack of range and cartridge power. The Battle rifle has good range and power and accuracy but at close range sometimes bursts are required for fleeting targets... a battle rifle is by definition capable of only single shot fire, like an SKS.
In the British army the SLR (FN FAL) is single shot ONLY because of British training which focusses on marksmanship. The Argentine armed forces used the full auto capable FN FAL which is a genuine assault rifle. (Not a perfect implementation of an assault rifle as it is not compact or light and in ful auto is not easy to control... but then the MP43 was neither small or light.)

The lack of long range accuracy from the AKS-74U means it might be called a short barreled assault rifle but it would more likely be taken in lieu of a SMG than an Assault rifle... ie Police troops or tankers.

"What is Fedorov Avtomat? Russian before WWII treated this weapon as... very light machine gun. "

No they didn't. Federov made many light machinegun versions of the Avtomat.. they had bipods and water cooling jackets. Later they dispensed with the water cooling jackets to reduce weight but bipods were retained for LMGs.

"Sorry, GazB, but automatic rifle uses rifle rounds is a battle rifle, regardless of fact that appeals to You or not."

It was chosen at a time when a custom, designed round was out of the question. It was half way through a war where weapon shortages were severe.. the introduction of a newly designed cartridge would be madness. The Japanese cartridge had been captured in numbers and more could be bought from Japan so it was the only viable option for a less powerful round that was not fully rimmed.


"Quote:
A battle rifle round is often also used in MMGs and LMGs as well.
How can it be a battle rifle round if MMGs and LMGs can use it?

Ekhm... excuse me, but I can't understand Your words (maybe above should be "can't use it"?). "

I will make myself more plain...

If it is a battle rifle round and the battle rifle can be single shot or full auto capable by your definition how can you define LMGs and MMGs that also use such a round. They must be battle rifles too. The fact that LMGs and MMGs are used in a different way than a battle rifle makes them LMGs and MMGs. But battle rifles that can fire automatically and are not used as LMGs are presumably used during assaults with long range single shot and short range full auto firepower... ie assault rifles.

"The only difference between battle rifle and assault rifle is ammunition - the first uses rifle cartridge, the second - intermediate cartridge."

I disagree. The Federov Avtomat used a different and less powerful round than the Russian standard battle rifle... ie Mosin Nagant rifles and carbines. Doesn't that make it an intermediate round? It was certainly more powerful than the 7.62x38mm Nagant revolver round and less powerful than the standard rifle round.
I consider the FN FAL and AR-10 as both being assault rifles. Despite the imperfection of a powerful round if your definition of an assault rifle hinges on combining the virtues of a SMG and a Battle rifle then the M16 is a much better implementation than an MP43 which was rather heavy and large for the role... despite that most agree that the MP43 was an assault rifle.

An experimental rifle round the Russians were known to be experimenting with was a 6mm round originaly with a 53mm case and later with a 49mm case that fired a 120 grain bullet at about 1,145mps. It was to be used in Rifles (ie Sniper), Assault rifles, LMGS(ie long barreled assault rifles) and MMGs. I guess by your rules such a weapon would not count as an assault rifle. I can guarantee with the introduction of effective body armour assault rifles by your definition will disappear as velocities and bullet weights go up.

"In Your opinion a SKS (the first SLR designed to 7,62 x 39mm ammo) looks like "scaled down" PTRS-41? I have the impression that You mixed up 7,62 x 54mmR AWS-36 with 7,62 x 39mm SKS-45. "

It doesn't look like a scaled down anything. The PTRS-41 mechanism was scaled down to 7.62 x 54Rmm as the SKS-41. When the M1943 round became available the SKS-41 mechanism was adapted to then new round... creating the SKS-45 or what is known today as the SKS.


"BTW - 7,62 x 54mmR is still used in... MMGs (PK/PKS)."

And SV-98, SVD, SVDS and SVDU sniper rifles.

"The 6.5x50SR Arisaka combined moderate recoil with good long-range performance. "

Pathetic long range performance. A light bullet travelling at relatively low velocites is more effected by cross wind, and has a very curved trajectory making range estimation very important to accuracy... in combat without any way to accurately judge range to target long range accuracy would be relatively poor.

"Germans may have developed many forms of new weapons but standadisation is common with respect to ammunition. "

The Soviets took standardisation beyond ammo.

"I thought the Communists and Nazi's were arch-enemies politically speaking?"

Politically speaking they were as the Soviet union was to Britain and the US. In real terms this meant little. The Germans taught the Soviets quite a lot about various things and the Soviets supplied a place to test and build things out of the gaze of the rest of europe and also supplied raw materials like oil, coal and steel.

"If they were so well equipped and held the numerical advantage, how is it that so many were killed? "

You could ask the same of the rest of europe. How were the British kicked off the beaches at Dunkirk or the French overrun in weeks.
Better tactics, and an unpreparedness for war on the opposing side. The Soviets had over 20,000 tanks and outnumbered the luftwaffe by a wide margin in aircraft, but most of the tanks were light tankettes or multituretted giants that were organised in small packets to support the infantry, and the aircraft were largely obsolete polikarpov biplanes and monoplanes that were completely outclassed by the BF-109s. The vast majority of the primative planes were destroyed on the ground so many pilots survived, but the seasoned and relatively well trained tank crews were chewed up by the superior tactics of the German tankers. Many commanders lacked skill and used human wave attacks... later better commanders like Zhukov banned such practises, but there was no strategic shortage of small arms. For a while there was a shortage of good aircraft and good tanks and trained tank crews but by 43 these problems were sorted.
The Soviets had seen the effectiveness of the German panzers in Europe and was in the middle of a reorganisation to use similar tactics when Barbarossa started.

"If the SKS45 looks like this...
...then the front end of an SKS is ALMOST indistinguishable from the front end of an AK47! "

I was referring to its mechanism... take them apart and look at them. External similarities mean nothing... look at the AK-74 and the AN-94.[/b]

[GazB]

"Thanks REMOV. The pragmastic approach to Soviet-Weimar relations was definately symbiotic."

Sometimes they seemed to be friends simply because they weren't getting better offers anywhere else.
When Germany made it clear they were going to invade Poland Stalin asked Britain what support they could offer... Stalin didn't want German forces any closer to Moscow than the British wanted them any closer to London. Britian couldn't offer any direct support so Stalin chose the best option... ie take half of Poland so that at least Hitler would be half of Poland further away... if he did nothing Germany would have taken all of Poland herself and the Soviets would have less of a buffer between her and German forces.

[REMOV]

I disagree with these classifications.
I understand but this is official, You know ;)

a battle rifle is by definition capable of only single shot fire, like an SKS.
Let's say - Is by your own definition. Tell me, what are sources You've based on? Naturally You can called any rifle taken to the battle as "battle rifle", but this isn't a technical vocabulary.

In the British army the SLR (FN FAL) is single shot ONLY because of British training which focusses on marksmanship. The Argentine armed forces used the full auto capable FN FAL which is a genuine assault rifle.
So, refer to your own definition British, Australian, Canadian also New Zelander L1A1s (SLR FN FALs) are battle rifles, and Argentinian or Belgium FN FALs suddenly change into assault rifles? Don't You think this is some kind of contradiction?

The lack of long range accuracy from the AKS-74U means it might be called a short barreled assault rifle but it would more likely be taken in lieu of a SMG than an Assault rifle... ie Police troops or tankers.
Right, but creators of classification systems had different opinion.

You know, classification is only a try to differetiate on thing from other, someone use one system someone else another, but without common premises our discussion is sensless. So, let's finish our classification struggle, because of it's going nowhere. I know your standpoint (strange for me, but cohesive I must admit), you know mine.

"What is Fedorov Avtomat? Russian before WWII treated this weapon as... very light machine gun. "
No they didn't. Federov made many light machinegun versions of the Avtomat.. they had bipods and water cooling jackets. Later they dispensed with the water cooling jackets to reduce weight but bipods were retained for LMGs.
You're wrong. Russian themselfs confirms that FA was treated as very light MG, sources (in Russian, but You can use Babelfish (http://babelfish.altavista.com/) if you want):
http://guns.ru/gallery/firearms/fedorov.html
http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/BeforeWWII/MS1/fedorov/

If it is a battle rifle round and the battle rifle can be single shot or full auto capable by your definition how can you define LMGs and MMGs that also use such a round. They must be battle rifles too.
But why? The first place in classification has round type, the second tactical use.

"The only difference between battle rifle and assault rifle is ammunition - the first uses rifle cartridge, the second - intermediate cartridge."
I disagree. The Federov Avtomat used a different and less powerful round than the Russian standard battle rifle... ie Mosin Nagant rifles and carbines. Doesn't that make it an intermediate round? It was certainly more powerful than the 7.62x38mm Nagant revolver round and less powerful than the standard rifle round.
Ekhm... GazB, Russian in 1905-1930s have FOUR standard cartridges (RIFLE rounds): Russian 7,62mm (Mosin), British 7,7mm (.303), French 8mm (Lebel) and Japanese 6,5mm (Arisaka). Both British and French round was used in RKKA LMGs - Chauchat and Lewis. Arisaka was a STANDARD rifle round. In Japan and also in Russia.


I consider the FN FAL and AR-10 as both being assault rifles. Despite the imperfection of a powerful round if your definition of an assault rifle hinges on combining the virtues of a SMG and a Battle rifle then the M16 is a much better implementation than an MP43 which was rather heavy and large for the role... despite that most agree that the MP43 was an assault rifle.
Both M16 and StG43 are using the same kind of round - intermediate, the same muzzle energy - 1200-2500J, dimensions and weight don't matter. FN FAL and AR-10 used rifle round, more powerful and attempt at control them in full auto fire is, lets say, destined to fail. The British understood this fact and made their battle rifle capable only to single fire. But, as I said, we should leave classification systems alone. We don't reach an agreement.

An experimental rifle round the Russians were known to be experimenting with was a 6mm round originaly with a 53mm case and later with a 49mm case that fired a 120 grain bullet at about 1,145mps. It was to be used in Rifles (ie Sniper), Assault rifles, LMGS(ie long barreled assault rifles) and MMGs. I guess by your rules such a weapon would not count as an assault rifle.
Classification depends on muzzle energy. Tell me what is energy of this round and I tell You what kind of rifle it would be.

I can guarantee with the introduction of effective body armour assault rifles by your definition will disappear as velocities and bullet weights go up.
Nope, we called new weapons also "battle rifles" and still don't have any problems with classification. Assault rifles uses intermediate rounds, battle rifles uses rifle round, the system is coherent :)

The PTRS-41 mechanism was scaled down to 7.62 x 54Rmm as the SKS-41.
Right, Simonov had only 22 days to desined a new weapon. But I'm not call into question this thing. SKS-41 was designed BEFORE PTRS-41, not inversely.

When the M1943 round became available the SKS-41 mechanism was adapted to then new round... creating the SKS-45 or what is known today as the SKS.
GazB, Simonov used his previous project SKS-41 to desing SKS-45, but You cannot said, that "The PTRS-41 mechanism was scaled down to 7.62 x 54Rmm as the SKS-41.", becouse PTRS-41 was based on SKS-41.

"BTW - 7,62 x 54mmR is still used in... MMGs (PK/PKS)."
And SV-98, SVD, SVDS and SVDU sniper rifles.
But You wrote about rimmed cartridges in full automatic weapons.

[GazB]

"Let's say - Is by your own definition. Tell me, what are sources You've based on? Naturally You can called any rifle taken to the battle as "battle rifle", but this isn't a technical vocabulary. "

My understanding of the technical definition of the term assault rifle is that it is a weapon that tries to combine the virtues of a Standard rifle with a SMG. ie longish range accuracy with short range firepower. The powerful round used by the FN FAL and AR-10 make them rather difficult to control at any but the shortest range but the intent was that they meet an assault rifle role. (The fact that they were poor implementations of assault rifles is neither here nor there.)


So, refer to your own definition British, Australian, Canadian also New Zelander L1A1s (SLR FN FALs) are battle rifles, and Argentinian or Belgium FN FALs suddenly change into assault rifles? Don't You think this is some kind of contradiction?


No. The Semi auto only SLRs cannot provide close range firepower needed to make them assault rifles. There is no more contradiction than calling an L1A1 a battle rifle and an FN FAL a LMG.

"Right, but creators of classification systems had different opinion. "

Most sources I have read suggest the Russians don't use the term assault rifle at all and just call their automatic weapons "automatics" (ie Avtomat). Basically the equivelent of calling them automatic battle rifles.

"You know, classification is only a try to differetiate on thing from other, someone use one system someone else another, but without common premises our discussion is sensless."

There is already the differnce between east and west terminology. What difference is one more going to make?

"You're wrong. Russian themselfs confirms that FA was treated as very light MG, sources (in Russian, but You can use Babelfish if you want):
http://guns.ru/gallery/firearms/fedorov.html "

Without using babelfish look at the botom of the page above (or the second bottom picture in the second link). Three images of Federov Avtomats. Two with pistol grips and no bipod and one with a bipod and no pistol grip. Suggests to me a seperate LMG version. What do you suppose a pistol grip in that position suggests? It is too far back to be held in any ****e position... maybe marching fire at close range targets of opportunity? ...like a SMG?

"But why? The first place in classification has round type, the second tactical use."

So the round used by a LMG suggests a battlerifle, but the use of a LMG with a bipod for unit support fire suggests LMG. Or The round used by the Federov Avtomat suggests a battle rifle, but the position of the pistol grip suggests assault rifle?

"Russian 7,62mm (Mosin), British 7,7mm (.303), French 8mm (Lebel) and Japanese 6,5mm (Arisaka). "

And of those four rounds which would be most suitable for use in an assault rifle?

"dimensions and weight don't matter."

Ahhh, so if you got the Mitrailleuse and loaded it with .30-30 rounds then it would be an assault rifle? ...of course with the less powerful round I am sure it would weight less than the 2 tons of the original.

"FN FAL and AR-10 used rifle round, more powerful and attempt at control them in full auto fire is, lets say, destined to fail. "

I have seen both fire in full automatic without obvious discomfort to the firer. (as long as the bursts are kept to 3-4 round muzzle climb isn't too bad. My own SLR just pushes back during firing... there is very little muzzle rise at all. during single shots... even in rapid fire.

"The British understood this fact and made their battle rifle capable only to single fire."

The British military are very conservative... the troops however aparantly grabbed as many full auto Argentine FN FALs as they could in the Falklands war. (The carbine version with the folding stock seemed to have been most prized).

"Classification depends on muzzle energy. Tell me what is energy of this round and I tell You what kind of rifle it would be. "

A little while ago you said it depended on bullet type first and role second, now you are suggesting that it all hinges on bullet type. How then do you deal with weapon families that share bullets... ie assault rifles with powerful rounds or LMGs with intermediate rounds?
The LMG is a unit support weapon of any calibre. A MMG is a belt fed weapon of full power rounds.

"Nope, we called new weapons also "battle rifles" and still don't have any problems with classification. Assault rifles uses intermediate rounds, battle rifles uses rifle round, the system is coherent"

As I said as more powerful rounds are required to defeat improved body armour then what you define as assault rifles will cease to exist as the power range they occupy with become inadequate to kill the enemy at combat ranges. Automatic rifles will become more powerful and probably leave your arbritrary 2,500J limit.

"SKS-41 was designed BEFORE PTRS-41, not inversely. "

Do you have a source for this?


When problems with the Tokarev SVT40 rifles began to be reported from the battle fronts, Simonov, ever ready to compete with his old rival, reduced the operating mechanism of the 14.5mm PTRS to the scale of the 7.62 x 54mmR cartridge to produce a shortened self loading infantry carbine. This new weapon, called the SKS41, was praised because of its simplicity of design, the ease with which it could be disassembled and reassembled, and the incorporation of a permanent magazine that was charged with stripper clips.
Page 100, The AK-47 Story, by Edward C Ezell.

"But You wrote about rimmed cartridges in full automatic weapons."

Yes, the SV-98 is a bolt action. Due to the bottle shape of the cartridge box magazines are limited to around 10-15 rounds.
In MMGs like the PK the rimmed cartridge means that the round must be withdrawn backwards from the links and then pushed forward into the chamber, as opposed to the 308 winchester round that is semi rimmed and can be pushed forward in the link straight into the breech... much simpler and easier.
Magazines must be carefully loaded to prevent the rims locking which will cause a jam.

[Shadow]

The german M1918: 13mm AT Gun
http://waffenhq.de/infanterie/tankgewehr01.jpg

[He219]

The Battle rifle has good range and power and accuracy but at close range sometimes bursts are required for fleeting targets...

Meaning it is still a Battle Rifle, right? A true Assault Rifle needs more than just Bursts in close quarters. Full Automatic action with SMG characteristics is desired. An intermediate round offers size and weight advantages for the capability to carry more ammunition and firepower on a given target. My.02 cents!


a battle rifle is by definition capable of only single shot fire, like an SKS

I've seen an SKS capable of Full Automatic operation! So the M14 is NOT a Battle Rifle? What makes the FN FAL a genuine assault rifle - the mere fact it CAN fire Fully Automatically?


The Federov Avtomat used a different and less powerful round than the Russian standard battle rifle... ie Mosin Nagant rifles and carbines. Doesn't that make it an intermediate round?

Just because the 7.62x54mm is a superb long range rifle round doesn't mean the lesser 6.5x50SR Arisaka is not a rifle round. Intermediate Assault Rifle rounds had to be developed to be practical. What do you consider the M1943 to be - An even weaker reduced rifle round or a large SMG/Pistol round?


I can guarantee with the introduction of effective body armour assault rifles by your definition will disappear as velocities and bullet weights go up.


http://club.guns.ru/images/barnaul/fig4-sm.jpg

The 5.56x45 mm RS-101 cartridge of enhanced penetration capability reveals excellent performance by defeating a 10 mm armored plate at the range of 100 meter.
The answer is in better armor piercing ballistic composition.
http://club.guns.ru/eng/barnaul.html

First you write:

The first weapon designed to use the M1943 round looked like a scaled down PTRS-41 anti tank rifle.
Then you say:

It doesn't look like a scaled down anything. The PTRS-41 mechanism was scaled down to 7.62 x 54Rmm as the SKS-41
And Finally:

I was referring to its mechanism... take them apart and look at them. External similarities mean nothing...look at the AK-74 and the AN-94

The AN-94 is an awesome weapon!

First you write:

Compared to the 7.62 x 54R it was a reduced power round that was semi rimmed and therefore better suited to automatic rifles.
REMOV responded:

BTW - 7,62 x 54mmR is still used in... MMGs (PK/PKS).
Then you add:

And SV-98, SVD, SVDS and SVDU sniper rifles.

If the 6.5x50SR Arisaka is better suited to automatic rifles, why are automatic rifles ('MMGs') still using 7.62x54mm Rimmed rounds?

REMOV wrote:

You're right, but both were designed in late 1800s, when nobody thinks about using it in automatic rifles. Arisaka 6,5 x 51mm was introduced in 1897 than modificated in 1905, and Mosin 7,62 x 54mm in 1891 and modificated in 1908

Then what about the Italians when they designed the Select Fire 'Cei-Rigotti' automatic rifle using the 6.5mm x 54mm round in the 1890's?


p-)
He219

[He219]

Most sources I have read suggest the Russians don't use the term assault rifle at all and just call their automatic weapons "automatics" (ie Avtomat). Basically the equivelent of calling them automatic battle rifles.

So the Russians call the Fedorov Avtomat the equivalent of an Automatic Battle Rifle?


"Russian 7,62mm (Mosin), British 7,7mm (.303), French 8mm (Lebel) and Japanese 6,5mm (Arisaka). "
And of those four rounds which would be most suitable for use in an assault rifle?
NEITHER!

Just what do you think the Muzzle Energy of a .30-30 round is? It is clearly a medium range rifle round and not intermediate for use in an Assault Rifle!


I have seen both fire in full automatic without obvious discomfort to the firer. (as long as the bursts are kept to 3-4 round muzzle climb isn't too bad.

I agree with you on that one. The BAR in bursts is quite good.

p-)
He219

[REMOV]

"SKS-41 was designed BEFORE PTRS-41, not inversely. "
Do you have a source for this?Naturally.


Page 100, The AK-47 Story, by Edward C Ezell.Ezell was wrong, sorry.


"In April 1941 Simonov developed his carbine with two types of fixed magazine. One five shot using the standard Mosin Nagant cartridge clip, and one ten shot using a special 10 shot stripper clip. Trials May 1941 showed that jams caused by the magazine were unacceptable and it was directed that this be corrected . Revised prototypes were ordered in July 1941 but due to the start of war with Germany they were never produced. Priority was given to production engineering the 14.5mm PTRS, the Simonov semi auto anti-tank rifle which was desperately needed at the front to combat the thin skinned early war German tanks. This was basically a scaled up Simonov rifle."Source: http://www.carbinesforcollectors.com/sks.htm


"The SKS41 was never put into production due to the out break of war on 22 June 1941. The perfected prototype was due to undergo trials in July 1941, but because of the war the Simonov design group was directed to concentrate on the production engineering for the PTRS 14.5mm anti-tank rifle which was given the highest priority in view of the rampaging Panzers rapidly over running the Soviet Army."
Source: http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Meadows/7162/sks.htm

[He219]

Slight Correction on my Part. I wrote something by accident. The Italians used the 6.5x52mm cartridge starting in 1891. I believe this is what the Cei-Rigotti used.....

p-)
He219

[REMOV]

Slight Correction on my Part. I wrote something by accident. The Italians used the 6.5x52mm cartridge starting in 1891. I believe this is what the Cei-Rigotti used.....
Right. Check this (http://attila.stevens-tech.edu/~glibera1/carcano/ammo/history.html) site to know more about 6,5mm Carcano ammunition. It was introduced ca. 1890, the first rifle designed to this round was Carcano M1891...
http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/arms/rifles/armisrc/arm104.jpg
Source: http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/arms/rifles/armisrc.htm

... and captain Cei-Rigotti started to work at his own automatic rifle ca. 1894. He demonstrated one in 1895 to the Pince of Naples, then project disappered for five years and in 1900 Cei-Rigotti shown his upgrated rifle to the public. Interesting thing - this weapon was tested in early 1900s (ca.1905) in UK by Small Arms Committee.
http://www.remov.com/inne/_Cei-Rigotti_1895(400).jpg
But your question was if 6,5mm Carcano round was desinged specially to use in automatic rifle. The answer is: no. Accidentaly it was used in Cei-Rigotti rifle, regardless of other things (rimless or not) he was an Italian designer ;)

[He219]

Remov, I did not have a question but merely stated the fact that a 6.5mm rifle round was previously used in Automatic applications in the 1890's.

REMOV wrote:

both were designed in late 1800s, when nobody thinks about using it in automatic rifles. Arisaka 6,5 x 51mm was introduced in 1897 than modificated in 1905, and Mosin 7,62 x 54mm in 1891 and modificated in 1908.

Well, Cei-Rigotti did. ;) That was my point.

The Italian Carcano was also produced in 7.35 mm version ca. 1938 and also in the 6.5x50SR Arisaka for the Japanese.

He219

[Doggonit55]

Remov, I did not have a question but merely stated the fact that a 6.5mm rifle round was previously used in Automatic applications in the 1890's.

REMOV wrote:

both were designed in late 1800s, when nobody thinks about using it in automatic rifles. Arisaka 6,5 x 51mm was introduced in 1897 than modificated in 1905, and Mosin 7,62 x 54mm in 1891 and modificated in 1908.

Well, Cei-Rigotti did. ;) That was my point.

The Italian Carcano was also produced in 7.35 mm version ca. 1938 and also in the 6.5x50SR Arisaka for the Japanese.

He219

WHO CARES! Give it up already, dammit. Your dimwitted conversations bore me. :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork: :fork:

[Trigger]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Did your 'fork' button get stuck? How long did it take to make that?

D55, you're definitely in the club...you make me laugh! rofl

[Doggonit55]

The AR-10 is also a much better weapon than the AR-15 but politics got in the way as usual.

Alright, it is a nice weapon. But it is NOT a good battle rifle. The FAL, G3, and the M14 all make for better battle rifles. The M14 is more accurate, the G3 is more controllable, and the FAL is sturdier. The AR10 was a great idea, and still is very popular as a long range rifle, but it really didn't do particularly well in any niche, battle rifle or assault rifle. The AR15 was lighter, recoiled less, carried more ammo, and still had a very effective round. If you think that a 5.56mm round is weak, please hold still as I run and get an M4, then we will see how you like 5.56mm FMJBT. Would you have rather carried an M16 or an AR10 in Vietnam? M16 of course, despite the flaws, AR10 would have been no better. Actualy, I might have been temped to kill a VC and take his AK, but that would be moving up to a whole different caliber. Anyway, the M16 was a nice rifle, in and of itself. I doubt the AR10 would have been any better, probably worse. Even the SASR in Vietnam often left the FAL's home and got some AR15's. Sure, some got Para FAL's, but the AR was the bread and butter of the jungles, swamps, mountains, and the Delta (Mekong)....

D55

[Doggonit55]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Did your 'fork' button get stuck? How long did it take to make that?

D55, you're definitely in the club...you make me laugh! rofl

Yay! I am in the club! I am in the club! woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot woot

This is actually quite easy. Click on the smiley about four times, then highlight, ctrl-c, and do ctrl-v a whole lot of times, and presto! You have your army.

D55 (Gotta change my sig)

P.S.: There ought to be a light of people who are in the club.

[Duke]

Dog, please don't tell me you hit that emoticon button that many times. It's friday, go out and have some fun.

[Duke]

Holy ****! I didn't see first OCD emoticon post. Man, please, for the love of all things sacred--relax.

[California Joe]

Holy Christ some of you guys need to discover girls.

Favorite gun? .45 cal John Armstrong styled flintlock in tiger striped maple.

I built it and it works just fine.

[REMOV]

Well, Cei-Rigotti did. ;) That was my point. <sigh>
Yes, You're right.

[Doggonit55]

Holy Christ some of you guys need to discover girls.

Favorite gun? .45 cal John Armstrong styled flintlock in tiger striped maple.

I built it and it works just fine.

Ok, thanks, shut the hell up

[Doggonit55]

Dog, please don't tell me you hit that emoticon button that many times. It's friday, go out and have some fun.

Hey wise ass!!! Look one frigging post above yours! THERE I EXPLAIN HOW THE HELL I DID IT! It's called: READ and THEN reply! Ass.
:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:

[Doggonit55]

Holy ****! I didn't see first OCD emoticon post. Man, please, for the love of all things sacred--relax.

You posted once already. Trying to raise your post count? We heard you. Thanks. Goodbye. See ya. :fork:

[REMOV]

My understanding of the technical definition of the term assault rifle is that it is a weapon that tries to combine the virtues of a Standard rifle with a SMG. ie longish range accuracy with short range firepower.
... and use an intermediate round. That's the part of assault rifle definition.

Most sources I have read suggest the Russians don't use the term assault rifle at all and just call their automatic weapons "automatics" (ie Avtomat). Basically the equivelent of calling them automatic battle rifles.
"Avtomat" means simply "automatic rifle", but Russians divide them as "shturmovye vintovka" (assault rifle) and "avtomaticheskaya vintovka" (battle rifle). So, Federov Avtomat means "Federov's automatic rifle" and "Kalashnikov Avtomat (AK)" means "Kalashnikov's automatic rifle", but it's name connected to internal mechanism of the rifle, but not a tactical use.

There is already the differnce between east and west terminology. What difference is one more going to make?
But You don't use proper east or west terminology. You're trying to introduces yours own classification types.

Without using babelfish look at the botom of the page above (or the second bottom picture in the second link). Three images of Federov Avtomats. Two with pistol grips and no bipod and one with a bipod and no pistol grip. Suggests to me a seperate LMG version. What do you suppose a pistol grip in that position suggests? It is too far back to be held in any ****e position... maybe marching fire at close range targets of opportunity? ...like a SMG?
Ekhm... it wasn't a normal pistol grip but some kind of magazine shelter. The 3rd illustration in my opinion is not so proper, because of FA uses old Lewis LMGs bipods and this shelter suddenly dissapeared with - scruntize this - magazine release lever.

So the round used by a LMG suggests a battlerifle, but the use of a LMG with a bipod for unit support fire suggests LMG. Or The round used by the Federov Avtomat suggests a battle rifle, but the position of the pistol grip suggests assault rifle?
First - You're draw a false conclusions. The position of pistol grip suggested nothing, becuose FA hasn't such grip. This wooden element looks like pistol grip to people used to front grip in M4, but it isn't such thing at all.
Second - the use of a bipod also suggests nothing - SG550 (Stgw 90) or FA MAS also have integral bipods but those assault rifles not LMGs.

And of those four rounds which would be most suitable for use in an assault rifle?
None. Assault rifles uses intermediate rounds, and all above are rifle cartridges.


"dimensions and weight don't matter."
Ahhh, so if you got the Mitrailleuse and loaded it with .30-30 rounds then it would be an assault rifle? ...of course with the less powerful round I am sure it would weight less than the 2 tons of the original.
Pardon? You have some problem with the context? Once again, I wrote: "Both M16 and StG43 are using the same kind of round - intermediate, the same muzzle energy - 1200-2500J, dimensions and weight (of such assault rifle - REMOV's note)don't matter."

The British military are very conservative... the troops however aparantly grabbed as many full auto Argentine FN FALs as they could in the Falklands war. (The carbine version with the folding stock seemed to have been most prized).
Ekhm... so what? Both are battle rifles.

"Classification depends on muzzle energy. Tell me what is energy of this round and I tell You what kind of rifle it would be. "
A little while ago you said it depended on bullet type first and role second, now you are suggesting that it all hinges on bullet type.
GazB, come it off! I'm using sometimes some text cuts, it's normal thing during discussion.

How then do you deal with weapon families that share bullets... ie assault rifles with powerful rounds or LMGs with intermediate rounds?
The LMG is a unit support weapon of any calibre. A MMG is a belt fed weapon of full power rounds.
Rifle round MMG is called "machinegun" (eg M60, M240), rifle round HMG is called "heavy machinegun" (M2HB, KPV), intermediate round LMG is called "automatic rifle" (Ameli, L86Ax, M249, RPD, RPK). You're using old classification and modern classification and its all mixed You up. Before and during WWII were such guns as LMG, MMG, HMG, but nowadays it changes.

As I said as more powerful rounds are required to defeat improved body armour then what you define as assault rifles will cease to exist as the power range they occupy with become inadequate to kill the enemy at combat ranges. Automatic rifles will become more powerful and probably leave your arbritrary 2,500J limit.
It's not my arbitrary limit, but universally limit both in east and west. I've opened my Polish "Weapon Encyclopedia" and open Anthony G. Williams web site with his article (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm): "ASSAULT RIFLES AND THEIR AMMUNITION: HISTORY AND PROSPECTS" and both intermediate round classifications are exactly THE SAME. So, tell me GazB, what are your sources about intermediate round muzzle energy?

Due to the bottle shape of the cartridge box magazines are limited to around 10-15 rounds.
Really? ;)
7,62 x 54mmR LMG M/20 Madsen (30 rds magazine)
http://www.ankkurinvarsi.net/jaeger/pk_M20.jpg
8 x 50mmR LMG M/15 Chauchat (20 rds magazine)
http://www.ankkurinvarsi.net/jaeger/pk_M15.jpg
7,62 x 54mmR Lahti-Saloranta M/26 (20rds magazine)
http://www.ankkurinvarsi.net/jaeger/pk_M26.jpg
Source:
http://www.ankkurinvarsi.net/jaeger/LMG1.htm,
http://www.ankkurinvarsi.net/jaeger/LMG2.htm


In MMGs like the PK the rimmed cartridge means that the round must be withdrawn backwards from the links and then pushed forward into the chamber, as opposed to the 308 winchester round that is semi rimmed and can be pushed forward in the link straight into the breech... much simpler and easier.
Right. But despite this fact PK is much reliable that M60 or RPD and its still in service ;)


Magazines must be carefully loaded to prevent the rims locking which will cause a jam.
That's right I never disagrees, but still 30rds box magazines exists. And don't forget about plate-shaped drum magazines - in DP and DT machine guns (47 and 60rds).
7,62 x 54mmR LMG DP
http://www.winterwar.com/images/Weapons/m1927dp.gif
7,62 x 54mmR LMG DT
http://www.ankkurinvarsi.net/jaeger/pk_DT.jpg
Source: http://www.winterwar.com/Weapons/SuSmallArms/SUAutomatics.htm

[California Joe]

OK, discover boys then, assclown.

[GazB]

Meaning it is still a Battle Rifle, right? A true Assault Rifle needs more than just Bursts in close quarters. Full Automatic action with SMG characteristics is desired.

Some trigger groups that can be fitted to the Steyr and a few HK Assault rifles allow single shot and 3-4 round burst only. If you are firing more than 3-4 round bursts in an assault rifle then you are wasting ammo.

"I've seen an SKS capable of Full Automatic operation! So the M14 is NOT a Battle Rifle?"

An SKS with a 30 round detachable mag and full auto capabilty meets your requirements for an assault rifle... why wouldn't it meet mine? The only difference between your definitionand mine is that mine is looser and does not require a purpose designed cartridge. Do you think an M14 firing full auto will be used for long range targets... or close range fleeting targets? Do you use a SMG for long range targets or short range fleeting targets?

"What makes the FN FAL a genuine assault rifle - the mere fact it CAN fire Fully Automatically? "

Why do you think it has full auto capability? A good example is the SVDU. It is a sniper rifle that is capable of full auto fire. The purpose was not to fire at long range targets in full auto, but to relieve the sniper of having to carry a short range defence weapon... pistols being underpowered and inaccurate when used under stress, some SMGs being too large and bulky when carried in addition to all of the other equipment a sniper must carry.

"Just because the 7.62x54mm is a superb long range rifle round doesn't mean the lesser 6.5x50SR Arisaka is not a rifle round. "

It is a rifle round... but so is the 5.56mm NATO round and the 7.62 x 39mm AK round and the 7.92 x 33mm round. Like these purpose designed rounds its mildness and design make it more useful in fullauto weapons than earlier higher power rounds.

"What do you consider the M1943 to be - An even weaker reduced rifle round or a large SMG/Pistol round? "

It is a rifle round. It was designed to be used in rifles.

"What do you consider the M1943 to be - An even weaker reduced rifle round or a large SMG/Pistol round? "

Penetrating a standard steel target is one thing. Add layers of Kevlar to catch the bullet and a ceramic plate and you can stop almost all rifle calibre rounds at most battle ranges.

"If the 6.5x50SR Arisaka is better suited to automatic rifles, why are automatic rifles ('MMGs') still using 7.62x54mm Rimmed rounds? "

The design of the round... ie the fact that the rim doesn't stick out like the rim of the 7.62 x 54mmR means that when you stack them in a magazine there is not chance of the rims locking, which would cause a jam.
Also the mild recoil means less pressure on parts which equates to longer life and potential weight savings.

But why isn't the Arisaka round used in Sniper rifles and Machineguns today? Very simply because with sniper rifles and Machineguns power and range are more important than how easily it can be fed into the weapon.

"So the Russians call the Fedorov Avtomat the equivalent of an Automatic Battle Rifle? "

Avtomat means automatic... they also call the AK-47 Avtomat Kalashnikova, and the AKM is the modernised avtomat kalashnikova.

"Just what do you think the Muzzle Energy of a .30-30 round is? It is clearly a medium range rifle round and not intermediate for use in an Assault Rifle! "

A .30-30 is very comparable to a 7.62 x 39mm round... The .30-30 has a slightly larger case, but the 7.62 x 39mm round operates at higher pressures. With similar bullet weights they are comparable.


"Source: http://www.carbinesforcollectors.com/sks.htm "

This source also has this:



In 1916, the world's first "assault type" rifle, the Fedorov in 6.5mm Japanese was placed in production in Russia. It used the Japanese cartridge because it was available in quantity and this lower powered round allowed the building of a better, reliable and more controllable automatic rifle. After the Red Revolution it was continued in production in limited numbers and work continued on improving it

Can you give a source for these sources... quoting a webpage in my opinion is not really good enough... just look at the BS there is on the net.

I stand by my source... Edward C Ezell is (was) the Curator in the Division of Armed Forces History, in the Smithsonian Institute.

"If you think that a 5.56mm round is weak, please hold still as I run and get an M4, then we will see how you like 5.56mm FMJBT."

I don't think it is weak... it lacks weight. Easily deflected. In fact in Vietnam some rounds came apart in mid air and hit nothing.


"Would you have rather carried an M16 or an AR10 in Vietnam?"

Shooting through jungle cover, I'd take 308 over 5.56. (My fellow countrymen and neighbours agreed and used SLRs in that war... not that most americans noticed).


"... and use an intermediate round. That's the part of assault rifle definition. "

Why does it need to try to use an intermediate round? Obviously using an intermediate round makes the design a much better assault rifle, but why should not having a purpose designed round preclude the user using it and the designer intending it to be used as an assault rifle?
Reminds me of a government department... here we have the rigid law that any weapon shorter than 76.2cms is a pistol and any weapon with a free standing pistol grip, a muzzle flash hider, a magazine that holds more than 7 centrefire rounds (or looks like it could hold more than 7 centrefire rounds) or has a folding stock is a Military Style Semi Automatic (MSSA) that requires a special licence. I own an SLR and a Chinese type 56S (AKM) and an SKS that have had all these features removed or altered so I can proudly say I don't have any MSSAs... but what is the truth really?
Rigid rules like that mean F_All.


"But You don't use proper east or west terminology. You're trying to introduces yours own classification types."

Hey, I come from the South Pacific, does that mean I have to choose East or West? I use a looser definition than you do for Assault rifle because I think the type of ammo used means squat as long as it is a rifle round and not a pistol round.


"First - You're draw a false conclusions. The position of pistol grip suggested nothing, becuose FA hasn't such grip. "

In "The AK-47 Story" book I have mentioned there are two pictures... one a photograph taken during the Russo-Finnish war in 39-40 and it shows three men equipped with Avtomats. The guy in the centre is using the pistol grip at the front as a pistol grip to balance the weapon on his knee.
The other picture is a drawing from Federovs book "Evolyutsiya strelkovogo oruzhiya (225) showing two soldiers in a ****e position with versions of the Avtomat with bipods and large water jackets and both are holding the weapon with their non trigger hands holding the front pistol grip.

"None. Assault rifles uses intermediate rounds, and all above are rifle cartridges. "

And an assault rifle doesn't use a rifle round?

"dimensions and weight (of such assault rifle - REMOV's note)don't matter."

Ahh, so if it is an assault rifle then it doesn't matter what its weight or size is.

"Rifle round MMG is called "machinegun" (eg M60, M240), rifle round HMG is called "heavy machinegun" (M2HB, KPV),"

Despite the fact that now rifles use 50 and 57 calibre rounds they are not usually called rifle rounds. Especially when you look at their energy levels... 18-20,000J for 50 cal and 30-32,000J for 57 cal.

"So, tell me GazB, what are your sources about intermediate round muzzle energy? "

I don't have differing sources on what constitutes an intermediate round, just a differeing opinion on whether a rifle is an assault rifle or a battle rifle merely because it doesn't use a modern reduced power round.
I personally think role is much more important.


"Right. But despite this fact PK is much reliable that M60 or RPD and its still in service"

Because it was a much better design. In fact some think the removal of the round backwards from the link and then forwards into the breech improves reliability because any dirt or foreign objects that might have been picked up by the belted ammo is given a serious shaking before it is loaded.


"Really?
7,62 x 54mmR LMG M/20 Madsen (30 rds magazine) "

I concede that is quite right, however semi rimmed rounds are more reliable. The Madsen was a good weapon, but the Chauchat was junk... if I was American I would be offended at such an image being posted and if I was French I'd be embarrased such a dark memory was revived.

You could also add the Bren gun and similar weapons using the british 303 round as well.

[Kraken]

The Germans were the first to introduce a rifle with particular components that we now understand to be der "sturmgewehr" or assault rifle. They invented the name and concept.

[Doggonit55]

OK, discover boys then, assclown.

Funny ****.... NOT! Guess your dad abused you all your life, maybe even raped you. :bash:

[Doggonit55]

The Germans were the first to introduce a rifle with particular components that we now understand to be der "sturmgewehr" or assault rifle. They invented the name and concept.

GazB will tell you otherwise.

[Kraken]

Funny ****.... NOT! Guess your dad abused you all your life, maybe even raped you.
That is a sick post.

[maw]

dog: regarding your comments about the ar10 and how the you feel the fal, g3, m14 are superior...
imo, the fal has one of the worst triggers in the business and is notoriously difficult to consistently get below 7lb's.
i happen to like the g3, many guys think it's too nose heavy but i can live with that, however the collapsing stock is a waste of time, it increases felt recoil and makes finding a good cheek weld almost impossible. go with the msg90 stock imho.
the m14 has had its time. let it rest in peace. it was overbuilt for its purpose out of the gate, remember it was designed and built to be able to handle firing 30.06 in full auto. don't take my word for it, disassemble a bar next to a m21 some time and take note of the similarities.
saying "The M14 is more accurate" is a subjective comment that can lead you down a slippery slope. there are plenty of sr25 based rifles consistenly shooting .5 moa, without getting into one let's just say that i disagree. additionally, to mention reliability, nsw recently concluded that "the Mk 11 actually out-performed the M-14 variants in over the beach testing".
presently the ar10 in it's various forms is actively being deployed, this even includes a number of armalite ar10's that were deployed in 'stan(!). the sr25 and mk11 mod 0 are the mid-heavy dmr/sa sniper rifles of choice for nsw operators, idf snipers and an ever increasing circle of operators. the same can not be said of the fal, g3 or the m14.

[GazB]

"The Germans were the first to introduce a rifle with particular components that we now understand to be der "sturmgewehr" or assault rifle. They invented the name and concept."

Hitler invented the name after the gun was designed, so naming it is rather unimportant. (If they'd handed him a Federov Avtomat he probably would have named it an assault rifle too.)

Please explain the concept.

My understanding is that the concept for an assault rifle is a weapon that has better range and accuracy than a pistol round in a SMG, but is capable of short range firepower in bursts or full auto fire.
Other attributes have been added like a reduced power cartridge and stamped sheet metal construction, but these are needed only for Better, more efficient implementations of an assault rifle and are not as such needed.

[REMOV]

My understanding is that the concept for an assault rifle is a weapon that has better range and accuracy than a pistol round in a SMG, but is capable of short range firepower in bursts or full auto fire.
What is in that case a "battle rifle"?

Other attributes have been added like a reduced power cartridge and stamped sheet metal construction, but these are needed only for Better, more efficient implementations of an assault rifle and are not as such needed.
So, FG42 is also an "assault rifle"?
Ah, GazB, You wrote above interesting thing - tell me once again, size does matter or not ("He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword"), because in your understanding of an "assault rifle" there isn't such classification? :P Also your definition lacks of tactical use of a such rifle. Ameli, L86 and M249 also fits ;)

[REMOV]

It is a rifle round... but so is the 5.56mm NATO round and the 7.62 x 39mm AK round and the 7.92 x 33mm round.
What is an intermediate round then? ;)

"What do you consider the M1943 to be - An even weaker reduced rifle round or a large SMG/Pistol round? "
It is a rifle round. It was designed to be used in rifles.
Again - what is an intermediate round? What for this kind of cartridge was produces?

A .30-30 is very comparable to a 7.62 x 39mm round... The .30-30 has a slightly larger case, but the 7.62 x 39mm round operates at higher pressures. With similar bullet weights they are comparable.
Right, both are intermediate rounds, so similiarities shouldn't suprised anybody.

Can you give a source for these sources... quoting a webpage in my opinion is not really good enough... just look at the BS there is on the net.
You know GazB, I can give You my sources - in Polish and Russian. Eg. Marcin H. Ochman, "Karabiny przeciwpancerne PTRD i PTRS", nTW 04/2003, ISSN 1230-1655, but I'm not quite sure, in which way You'll check my words. I found two web sites in English to confirm my words and I thought that was enough.

I stand by my source... Edward C Ezell is (was) the Curator in the Division of Armed Forces History, in the Smithsonian Institute.
So what? His sources were better than Russian or Polish - users of this gun? ;) Sorry, but this time Ezell was wrong despite his position. Errare humanum est. And it's very strange for me, that your knowledge is based on only one book. And on very short and little accurate part of Ezell's book.

Why does it need to try to use an intermediate round?
An assault rifle uses intermediate round.

Obviously using an intermediate round makes the design a much better assault rifle, but why should not having a purpose designed round preclude the user using it and the designer intending it to be used as an assault rifle?
There is not such thing as "used as an assault rifle", something is an assault rifle or is not. Technical vocabulary is very accurate (You aren't an engineer, are You?) in all languages. You've got many other words to describe another gun, such "battle rifle", "automatic rifle" etc., but term "assault rifle" is inseparable associated with intermediate round. That'a all.
As I said, You're trying to make your own vocabulary, your own tems. It's acceptable, but don't tell me, that is the vocabulary that all world uses.

Reminds me of a government department... here we have the rigid law that any weapon shorter than 76.2cms is a pistol and any weapon with a free standing pistol grip, a muzzle flash hider, a magazine that holds more than 7 centrefire rounds (or looks like it could hold more than 7 centrefire rounds) or has a folding stock is a Military Style Semi Automatic (MSSA) that requires a special licence.
What's about auto fire mode?

I own an SLR and a Chinese type 56S (AKM) and an SKS that have had all these features removed or altered so I can proudly say I don't have any MSSAs... but what is the truth really? Rigid rules like that mean F_All.
Nope. If your rifles can both fire semi and auto fire, despite of stock, pistol grip, flash hider and magazines used ARE assault rifles. You mixed up law rules with technical descriptions.

Hey, I come from the South Pacific, does that mean I have to choose East or West? I use a looser definition than you do for Assault rifle because I think the type of ammo used means squat as long as it is a rifle round and not a pistol round.
... and rejected such weapon like "battle rifle", becouse this name doesn't suit to your own system? Second thing - type of ammo uses is an important thing - there are three basic ammo types to personal firearm - pistol, intermediate and rifle rounds. And there are huge differences between them. If such differences doesn't exist, the name "intermediate round" never comes into being, right? Also "assault rifle".

And an assault rifle doesn't use a rifle round?
Of course, not. An intermediate round distinguised assault rifles.

Despite the fact that now rifles use 50 and 57 calibre rounds they are not usually called rifle rounds. Especially when you look at their energy levels... 18-20,000J for 50 cal and 30-32,000J for 57 cal.
They are also rifle rounds, becouse there isn't upper energy limit for rifle rounds. If they are less than ca. 20mm calibre they still are rifle rounds. 12,7mm Barrett M90, 14,5mm Gepard, 20mm RT-20 and NTW-20 are still rifles and uses rifle ammunition.

You could also add the Bren gun and similar weapons using the british 303 round as well.
Right, but magazines with more than 20rds rimmed rounds exists. And that was my point.

[GazB]

"What is an intermediate round then?"

An intermediate round is of course a reduced power rifle round designed to be fired at (much) less than 1km as opposed to older rounds designed with sights out to 1.5km to 2km.

It is still a rifle round... used in rifles, not pistols.

"Again - what is an intermediate round? What for this kind of cartridge was produces?"

The cartridge was designed for assault rifles, but it is not used exclusively in assualt rifles. The M1943 was first used in the SKS45, and was also used in the RPD and RPK. The 5.56mm NATO was also used in quite a few weapons that weren't Assault Rifles. (FN Minimi, Negev (spelling), civilian hunting rifles).

"And it's very strange for me, that your knowledge is based on only one book."

I read rather widely, but his book I keep closest to hand, as it seems to be better than most.

"An assault rifle uses intermediate round."

By your definition, not mine.

"but term "assault rifle" is inseparable associated with intermediate round. That'a all. "

Assault rifle, is a rifle used in an assault. ie at short range like a SMG or over longer ranges.
An intermediate round makes a rifle a better implementation of an assault rifle, but is not a defining feature.
The M1 Carbine and its full auto counterparts (M3) used an intermediate cartridge, yet does that make them assault rifles?


"What's about auto fire mode? "

No full auto firearms are allowed except to collectors.
(ie a person with an MSSA licence cannot own a full auto rifle or pistol, but someone with a collectors licence could.)

"Nope. If your rifles can both fire semi and auto fire, despite of stock, pistol grip, flash hider and magazines used ARE assault rifles. You mixed up law rules with technical descriptions. "

You miss my point. They used the law to create a type of weapon called a MSSA (military style semi automatic (rifle)). With any such attempt there are so many loopholes that even weapons that common sense would dictate should be included can be excluded and treated as sporting rifles.
I don't feel bad about such a deception as I use the rifles I own for sporting purposes and have no intention of ever shooting a person with them.

My point was that the use you might put an M16 to in combat could be the same use you might put an AR-10 or even an FN FAL to, yet you give them different names based on the round they fire. That doesn't make sense to me. If you are happy with that then fine, but you are not going to change my mind about this...any more than I am likely to change your mind.
I think the best thing is to agree to disagree.

"there are three basic ammo types to personal firearm - pistol, intermediate and rifle rounds."

I would add a few extra ammo types. Pistol, light rifle, heavy rifle/MG and HMG rounds due to the addition of long range sniper rounds like .338 Laupa magnum and 50 cal and 51 cal as well as much rarer 57 cal and even light cannon cal weapons.

"They are also rifle rounds, becouse there isn't upper energy limit for rifle rounds. If they are less than ca. 20mm calibre they still are rifle rounds. 12,7mm Barrett M90, 14,5mm Gepard, 20mm RT-20 and NTW-20 are still rifles and uses rifle ammunition. "

I disagree. From 50 cal up the projectiles can carry a reasonable payload of HE and can be called shells rather than bullets. Shells define cannon rounds and 20mm is a connon round whether it can be fired from a rifle or not. (The British still use rifled tank guns... is the 120mm gun on a Challanger 2 a rifle?... how about a 105mm howitzer? ...ever run around the parade ground shouting this is my rifle (slapping your rifle) and this is my gun (slapping your crotch area) this is for shooting (slapping your rifle), this is for fun (slapping your crotch area)... my brother has... :-)

[Duke]

Hitler invented the name after the gun was designed, so naming it is rather unimportant. (If they'd handed him a Federov Avtomat he probably would have named it an assault rifle too.)
gaz, I can't help it, but I have to jump on this thread. You are one dumb ****-ing idiot. You always come up with stupid invalid arguments, and pawn it off on this board as intelligence. Please, don't THINK I'm picking on, because I AM. I wouldn't be so profane, but you're so adamant in posting ignorance.
First, Hitler didn't invent the MP44, it was German engineering. Furthermore, who invented or coined the phrase "assault rifle", the germans. And why do we still use the name? Because the MP44 is the precursor of ALL assault rifles.
Here are some links so you can SHUT THE **** UP, ****-ING MORON. Read this **** and STOP posting ignorant BULL-****-ING MORONIC INFO. DAMN ARE YOU IGNANT

www.iwm.org.uk/collections/exhibits/ex-corner.htm
www.world.guns.ru/assault/as51-e.htm
The BBC, The B-B-*****ING-C YOU DEFEND SO MUCH- www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/a852789
www.diggerhistory.info/pages-weapons/enemy_ww2.htm

YOUR UNDERSTANDING MEANS ****.
And lastly it would take you two minutes to do a net search on the this topic, but your dumbass just dives in an argument without constructive facts and more importantly--logic.

[GazB]

Ahh a refreshing and intelligent reply as per usual Duke.

I never said Hitler invented any rifle. In fact he had expressly forbidden the development of an intermediate round and therefore can be described as the leader that actually tried to kill the assault rifle before it was created.

The MP43 was called MP43 because StG was verboteen (forbidden by the express orders of Hitler). IE it started as a machine pistol (MP) because assault rifle (Sturmgewehr or StG) was told no! by Hitler.
When reports from the front of its success brought it to Hitlers attention it was renamed assault rifle (StG44) and given the place it deserved.
(its advantage over SMG armed Russian troops was in range and power... due to general combat conditions which meant that no soldier on any side during WWII could hit a moving target at more than 400m and most a lot less unless they were snipers with the right equipment resulted in soldiers with MP43s having a range advantage over those with similar firepower (ie SMGs) and a firepower advantage over those with Bolt action or Semi auto rifles.)

If the StG44 is the worlds first assault rifle, what is the MKb42... the machine carbine the StG44 is based upon? Apart from name they are very similar... a bit like the AKM is to the AK-47...

[REMOV]

Ahh a refreshing and intelligent reply as per usual Duke.
The MP43 was called MP43 because StG was verboteen (forbidden by the express orders of Hitler). IE it started as a machine pistol (MP) because assault rifle (Sturmgewehr or StG) was told no! by Hitler.
The first name of this kind of rifle was "Machinenkarabiner" (or MKb - Apparat35 and others) then "Machinenpistole" (MP43) and then "Sturmgewehr" (or StG, because Hitler thought that this name is more "threatening").

I.e. MKb 42(H) (made by Haenel Waffen und Fahrrad Fabrik)...
http://www.remov.com/bullpup/__mkb42h.jpg
...and Walther's MKb 42(W).
http://www.remov.com/bullpup/__mkb42(w).jpg

[Shadow]

Ahh a refreshing and intelligent reply as per usual Duke.
The MP43 was called MP43 because StG was verboteen (forbidden by the express orders of Hitler). IE it started as a machine pistol (MP) because assault rifle (Sturmgewehr or StG) was told no! by Hitler.
The first name of this kind of rifle was "Machinenkarabiner" (or MKb - Apparat35 and others) then "Machinenpistole" (MP43) and then "Sturmgewehr" (or StG, because Hitler thought that this name is more "threatening").

I.e. MKb 42(H) (made by Haenel Waffen und Fahrrad Fabrik)...
http://www.remov.com/bullpup/__mkb42h.jpg
...and Walther's MKb 42(W).
http://www.remov.com/bullpup/__mkb42(w).jpg

rofl http://www.daemmerzustand.de/wbboard/images/smilies/biggrin.gifhttp://www.daemmerzustand.de/wbboard/images/icons/thumb_up.gif

[REMOV]

(made by Haenel Waffen und Fahrrad Fabrik
You know, the first mass produced German intermediate round (7,92 x 33mm) was manufactured by Polte Armaturen und Maschinenfabrik AG from Magdeburg ;)

[He219]

If the StG44 is the worlds first assault rifle, what is the MKb42... the machine carbine the StG44 is based upon? Apart from name they are very similar... a bit like the AKM is to the AK-47

Come on GazB! You know the difference between the MKb 42H with respect to the MP43/Stg44 is that they are virtually indestinguishable!

You of all people could write pages on how the AKM is different from the AK-47, notably that the stamped receiver is totally different from the machined one. The prelim MKb 42H is virtually the same weapon as the MP43 & Stg44! No major changes in production like the AKM did.

p-)
He219

[He219]

The M1 Carbine and its full auto counterparts (M3) used an intermediate cartridge, yet does that make them assault rifles?

The M2 Carbine was the Full Auto counterpart with the 'M3 Carbine' being the optic mount version of the M2 Carbine as REMOV so kindly pointed out earlier. The M3 is the Grease Gun (SMG). The M2 & M3 Carbines are definately not assault rifles because the .30 Carbine Cartridge in not an intermediate rifle round. The power makes it more like a SMG than an Assault Rifle. I love my Winchester M1 Carbine. It is fantastic up to about 75 yards. The ballistics suck after that.

p-)
He219

[XASA]

The M1 Carbine and its full auto counterparts (M3) used an intermediate cartridge, yet does that make them assault rifles?

The M2 Carbine was the Full Auto counterpart with the 'M3 Carbine' being the optic mount version of the M2 Carbine as REMOV so kindly pointed out earlier. The M3 is the Grease Gun (SMG). The M2 & M3 Carbines are definately not assault rifles because the .30 Carbine Cartridge in not an intermediate rifle round. The power makes it more like a SMG than an Assault Rifle. I love my Winchester M1 Carbine. It is fantastic up to about 75 yards. The ballistics suck after that.

p-)
He219

Glad to see someone appreciates the much denigrated carbine. The carbine wasn't designed or issued to be an offensive weapon but to supplement pistols as a defensive weapon. Its range was limited-- it was effective out to 150-200 meters-- and its reputation for not being a manstopper has already been well chronicled by others. Yet many soldiers swore by them. Audie Murphy won more than a few of his medals with one. Also, all you have to do is watch the History Channel to see how many soldiers and Marines opted to carry one instead of a M1 or submachine gun. Despite its marginal stopping power, more than 6 million were manufactured. Although dated, if the sh** ever hit the fan and it was all I could carry, I wouldn't be disappointed.

[REMOV]

The M2 & M3 Carbines are definately not assault rifles because the .30 Carbine Cartridge in not an intermediate rifle round
I'm afraid you're not right. 7,62 x 33mm (or .30 US Carbine) is classified as an intermediate round, very weak I must admit (muzzle energy ca.1200-1250J) and a little bit strange, but still intermediate, the first such type cartridge went to mass production. So, M2 and M3 Carbine are some incarnation of an assault rifle, have single and auto fire mode etc.

[He219]

REMOV, the U.S. M1 carbine suffered because its cartridge was only marginally more powerful than pistol cartridges at the time. A true intermediate cartridge is in the 1,250-2,500J range depending on the calibre. You stated that the .30 Carbine was pushing 1,250J. I don't think the M1 Carbine has the minimum effective range to qualify it as an Assault Rifle.


In the modern sense the .30 carbine cartridge can be called an "intermediate" but the lack of the muzzle energy and round nosed bullet limited the effective range to about 200 meters or so.
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl08-e.htm

What do you describe as the minimum effective range for an Assault rifle to be? I say up to +/- 300 yards/meters.

World.gun.ru describes the M1 Carbine as 'almost an assault rifle'
I agree with that description.


p-)
He219

[He219]

An assault rifle---forget the AP Style Book definition, its dead wrong---is a reduced power rifle caliber, selective-fire, reasonably compact weapon smaller in size than a full-caliber rifle, capable of a reasonable degree of accuracy out to 400 yards. Generally, an assault rifle accepts a magazine of a least 20 rounds. One can construe certain full caliber rifles to meet this specification, but submachine guns can only loosely border on any definition of the true assault rifle. Beretta's M38A, the Hungarian 39M, and long-barreled versions of the Finnish Suomi come very close; at the other end of the spectrum, the U.S. Carbine M1 and M2 come very close, but in fact fall into their own very special category. In every case, the "pure" assault rifles replaced or supplemented much more powerful rifles...in U.S., M16 replaced M14, in the USSR, AK an SKS replaced the Nagant and Tokarev in 7.62x54R M91, and so on.


http://www.totse.com/en/politics/right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/arifle2.html

[James]

So, uh, I have a question. What's the difference between a battle rifle and an assault rifle? :D

[XASA]

Most folks consider any rifle shooting what was considered a "full size" bullet; i.e., 7.62mm, a battle rifle. Most common examples are the M-14, FN FAL an the G3 (a/k/a CETME). They can be capable of automatic fire, although the latter can be a bit of a problem since the weapons are rather light and shooting in full auto becomes "spray and pray". What you give up in accuracy and range with an assualt rifle, which is generally a weapon that shoots an "intermediate" cartdrige, i.e., 5.56mm or 7.62 Soviet M1943, you make up in more rounds carried and controllable automatic fire. The detailed discussion on this particular thread as to what is an intermediate round and what isn't is a perfect example of how none of this definitions are set in stone.

[James]

THanks, Xasa, I know. I was being sarcastic - trying to get a rise out of a few people. :D

[XASA]

THanks, Xasa, I know. I was being sarcastic - trying to get a rise out of a few people. :D

lol James. I usually pick up on sarcasm but took your query as a serious one. As you probably already noted, "definitions" are in the eye of the beholder :P

[REMOV]

REMOV, the U.S. M1 carbine suffered because its cartridge was only marginally more powerful than pistol cartridges at the time.
Ekhm... He219, we're talking about M2 and M3 Carbine, M1 wasn't an assault rifle at all. It was some kind of second world war PDW. Second thing is, that .30 round is really on the edge. It's a weakest intermediate round I know but still - according to most of my sources - intermediate.

A true intermediate cartridge is in the 1,250-2,500J range depending on the calibre.
Right, I quoted that, remeber? ;)

You stated that the .30 Carbine was pushing 1,250J. I don't think the M1 Carbine has the minimum effective range to qualify it as an Assault Rifle.
As I wrote to GazB, every classification system has got weak points. We'll find lots of arguments for and agains this thesis, but I think we'll not to convince each other, so... [/quote]

What do you describe as the minimum effective range for an Assault rifle to be? I say up to +/- 300 yards/meters.
A Minimum? Just THE effective range of such rifle is ca.300 meters.

BTW - You know that was the same problem with American cartridge M193, becouse it suit an assault rifle well (and not exceeds ca.350m range limit), but that were a lot of problems with support weapon family (which requires ca. 500m range) based on this cartridge, so in 1980s Americans change both bullet (to Belgian SS109) and rifling twist.

World.gun.ru describes the M1 Carbine as 'almost an assault rifle'
I agree with that description.
I share your opinion ;)
"Almost", but nevertheless "the assault rifle" :lol:

[He219]

O.K. REMOV :roll:

Regardless, the US 'Ball' ammunition .30 Carbine is the same round used in the M1, M2 & M3 Carbines. Of course the Automatic Versions are the only ones remotely close to Assault Rifles, albeit Carbines....


I share your opinion
"Almost", but nevertheless "the assault rifle"

Almost, but not ;)

I like my M1 Carbine but find that it jams on occasion. Do you have that problem XASA?

p-)
He219

[REMOV]

I like my M1 Carbine but find that it jams on occasion.There's one interesting thing - Israelis the most experienced in urban operations, still uses .30 round in their carabine (form Galil family) .30 Magal. So, a weak round, but...?

[XASA]

I like my M1 Carbine but find that it jams on occasion.There's one interesting thing - Israelis the most experienced in urban operations, still uses .30 round in their carabine (form Galil family) .30 Magal. So, a weak round, but...?

He219: I sold my carbine ten years ago when I bought a Mini-14. Most problems I did experience were due to the magazines rather than the piece itself. Cheap aftermarket ones were a pain in the ass and original G.I. issue were difficult to find and expensive.

REMOV: The Israelis issue the .30 Magal to police, where it's found a home. They do not issue it to their military. I have to agree with He219 that it's not what one would call an intermediate round; in fact, it's in a bastard category all it's own with its straight case. Remember, the first intermediate rounds were necked down rifle cartdriges (Germans 8mm necked down to 7.92 Kurz and the U.S. 30.06 necked down to 7.62 Nato).

[He219]

Nice call REMOV!

http://www.geocities.com/ph_armstrong/SmallArms/Submachineguns/Israel.jpg

Israelis found the 5.56 to be overpenetrating and use the .30 Carbine Ball ammunition in the .30 Magal - Would you call it an Assault Carbine? It even uses the M1 Carbine 30 Rnd. Mags!

Interesting article on Assault Weapons vs. Assault Rifles. Read it here:
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/arifle2.html

p-)
He219

[He219]

XASA, interesting point about the mags. I'll have to try out the std. ones and double check the jamb rate. Thanks!

p-)
He219

[REMOV]

It is still a rifle round... used in rifles, not pistols.
So, 9mm round is also rifle round, becouse it's used in some models of carbines like 9x19mm Berreta Cx4 Storm or 9x39mm OC-14 Groza and rifles like VSS?

"An assault rifle uses intermediate round."
By your definition, not mine.
NOT my definition, but in general.

Assault rifle, is a rifle used in an assault. ie at short range like a SMG or over longer ranges. An intermediate round makes a rifle a better implementation of an assault rifle, but is not a defining feature.
GazB, it is a defining feature. Without intermediate round, the whole idea of assault rifle didn't exist.

The M1 Carbine and its full auto counterparts (M3) used an intermediate cartridge, yet does that make them assault rifles?
The M2 and M3 versions were assault rifles.

My point was that the use you might put an M16 to in combat could be the same use you might put an AR-10 or even an FN FAL to, yet you give them different names based on the round they fire.
Because of the round defines their features. With a FN FAL You has a chance to hit a target 500m farther, with M16 You're not (only by chance). That's why guns with some similarities have different names.

I think the best thing is to agree to disagree.
Right, I gave You such proposal three or four letters earlier, remember? ;)

"there are three basic ammo types to personal firearm - pistol, intermediate and rifle rounds."
I would add a few extra ammo types.
What for? Non sunt multiplicanda entia preater neccesitatem.

I disagree. From 50 cal up the projectiles can carry a reasonable payload of HE and can be called shells rather than bullets. Shells define cannon rounds and 20mm is a connon round whether it can be fired from a rifle or not.
I disagree. That was 15mm HMG like FN MILO and it is a rifle not a cannon, 15,7mm Steyr AMR also was AntiMaterial RIFLE, also Croatian 20mm heavy sniper rifle RT-20 (not antipersonnel cannon, though) and 20mm South African NTW-20 (Aerotec). Upper limit for a rifle ammo is 20mm, not "above 12,7mm (or .50 if You like British system)".

(The British still use rifled tank guns... is the 120mm gun on a Challanger 2 a rifle?... how about a 105mm howitzer?
You've changed the subject, no arguments, huh? It doesn't matter that something is rifled or not. I know smoothbore assault rifle e.g. Steyr ACR, so it's a cannon?

[James]

If a personal weapon is smoothbore, it can not be called a "rifle". We should open a new category here - the "Assault Musket". Opinions please. :P

[rob]

(The British still use rifled tank guns... is the 120mm gun on a Challanger 2 a rifle?... how about a 105mm howitzer?
You've changed the subject, no arguments, huh? It doesn't matter that something is rifled or not. I know smoothbore assault rifle e.g. Steyr ACR, so it's a cannon?

because a weapon has rifling or is rifled it doesnt make it a rifle. i rifle is a catagory of guns that is named after this feature but not nessicarly defined by the presence of the feature if that makes sence.

[REMOV]

The Israelis issue the .30 Magal to police, where it's found a home. They do not issue it to their military.
Yes, right, but we're talking about assault rifles not forces that uses them.

I have to agree with He219 that it's not what one would call an intermediate round; in fact, it's in a bastard category all it's own with its straight case.
That's why most of writers puts the .30 cartrigde to intermediate round category, becouse of similarities to that rounds. Of course the muzzle energy almost fits.

Remember, the first intermediate rounds were necked down rifle cartdriges (Germans 8mm necked down to 7.92 Kurz and the U.S. 30.06 necked down to 7.62 Nato).
Two times wrong! German used 7,92 x 57mm and 7,92 x 33mm wasn't necked down Mauser rifle cartridge, but a new cartridge itself. The same calibre doesn't mean necked down cartridge! This is some kind of approximation used by popular writers, but doesn't means it is a good. Don't mix up two different things.

And second thing - the 7,62 x 51mm it ISN'T a intermediate round, it is normal rifle round with shortened case - a muzzle energy is THE SAME as in .30-06. The 7,62mm NATO has a new and better propellant, and cutting down the case doesn't mean that decreases a cartridge power.

[REMOV]

If a personal weapon is smoothbore, it can not be called a "rifle". We should open a new category here - the "Assault Musket". Opinions please. :P
In general all assault rifles fed by (intermediate) flachette ammunition have smoothbore barrels (i.e. SALVO, SPIW, AAI ACR, Steyr ACR etc.).

[James]

REMOV,

Forgive me, but I am not familiar with any of those weapons systems. Can you provide web links so I can research them? Anyone else for that matter. Your input will be appreciated.

[GazB]

I like the .30 carbine too... there are a few in the gunshops here and if the amo was cheaper I'd consider buying one. A good round for goats.
The advantage it has in combat is almost no recoil so in close range combat... multiple hits from a 30 cal is just as good as a single .30-06 round.

A similar round ( the 9 x 30mm Grom) used in the Gepard SMG is also in that trickey power range. It has never been a pistol round and is would be rather weak as a rifle round... where do you put it?

Anyway back on topic... this isn't in the list but I like this...
(Yes, it is Russian, and yes it is 12.7mm)

http://www.sinopa.ee/sor/bo001/bo05sv/bo05sv08/oc44001.jpg

[REMOV]

Forgive me, but I am not familiar with any of those weapons systems. Can you provide web links so I can research them? The idea is to fire small arrows (so-called 'flechettes' or 'flachettes') very very fast which gave the tiny needle the same power as the 7.62mm NATO bullet (muzzle velocity ca.1600m/s compare to ca.1000m/s M193 or SS109). You can easily compare the flachettes to APFSDS tank rounds fired from smoothbore barrels, they are also fin-stabilised and have also discarding sabot. Main principles are the same. The attractions of high velocity fired small arrow was to achieve a flatter trajectory for a longer effective range.
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9631/obscure/rsabo5.jpg
So, Americans in 50s started to develop such round in the SALVO project, a very strange multibarrel weapon system, but failed.
http://www.remov.com/bullpup/_SALVO(300)BW.jpg
The next attempt took place in mid 60s with the SPIW (Special Purpose Infantry Weapon) project (connected with developing the first underbarrel grenade launchers) . But the problems with such round were the same - arrow stabilization, crosswind, lack of special ammunition such tracer or ap round etc. So program and flechettes failed again.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/spiw.jpg
Springfield Armory SPIW (1964)
http://www.remov.com/bullpup/_SPIW_1964(600)BW.jpg
Nevertheless, the benefits of achieving the flattest possible trajectory, to minimise aiming errors and simplify firing at moving targets, still attract experimentation. Third attempt at developing such cartridge was in mid 80s with the ACR (Advanced Combat Rifle) project. Two of four rifles admited to final tests were feded by flachettes ammo - the Steyr ACR and the AAI ACR. But once again - despite of modern needle round - project failed. Most due to political problems - it was an end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union collapsed, government cut down financing ACR program. And second thing is, the all ACR rifles (HK G11, Colt ACR, Steyr ACR, AAI ACR) were better then a comparative weapon M16A2, but were rejected as offering insufficient benefits to be worth adopting.
http://www.steyr-aug.com/acr1page3.jpg
Steyr ACR
http://www.steyr-aug.com/acr1.jpg
Colt ACR
http://elek.osemka.p.lodz.pl/~robertog/graphics/aaiacr_2.jpg

Sources:
http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-spiw.html
http://www.steyr-aug.com/acr2002.htm
http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/flechette.html

[GazB]

The two main problems with Flechettes in the past have been accuracy and lethality. The accuracy problem seems to be largely solved though it is still not as accurate as a ball round. (New synthetic sabots solved the problem).
The lethality problem is that unless the flechette bends on impact it has been shown to actually pierce a heart but not stop that heart from beating... ie even a heart shot is not fatal. (obviously a brain shot or spine shot would be effective, but unless it bends as it travels through the body it does very little soft tissue damage).
Its big advantages are almost no recoil, excellent body armour defeat capabilites at all ranges (ie it pokes through Kevlar fibres like a needle) and very flat trajectory, so zero at about 5-600m and aim at centre of the target... any target at any range you are likely to be able to hit a moving target.

[XASA]

REMOV: I stand corrected on 7.62 NATO round not being an "Intermediate" round. My reply was done in haste. Now that I've time, let me write a more detailed response.

Although it was the wrong example, I should have used the Soviet M1943 instead, I stand by the points I was making, which you, in your infinite wisdom, stated were wrong, so be patient as I correct your assertions:

The official nomenclature for the German round is the "7.9 mm Infanterie Kurz Patrone," which, translated, as you probably know, to "7.9 mm Infantry Short Cartdrige". The only difference between it and the standard issue 7.92 is the "Kurz" has a case 33 mm long and 24.6 grains of propellant as opposed to the 57 mm case and 40-50 grains for the standard, they used the same bullet; therefor, it is a necked down version.

You obviously have a great interest in this subject and from your previous posts, you are well versed as well. I am not a scholar and don't profess to know it all as you do, so let me quote a source we might agree on: the eight edition of "Small Arms of the World," the classic by W. H. B. Smith and revised by Joseph E. Smith of the Army Material Command. I have later editions, but this is my favorite since I "borrowed" it from Branch Library #4 located on Smoke Bomb Hill, Ft. Bragg, NC thirty years ago:

"The new shoulder weapons are chambered for a new 7.62mm 'intermediate-sized' cartridge, i.e., a cartridge intermediate in size between the U.S. cal. .30 carbine cartridge and the U.S. cal. .30 rifle cartridge." Smith continues, "Essentially, cartridges of the size of the German 7.92mm short and the Soviet 7.62mm M1943 are cut down versions of full-sized rifle cartdriges."

If you still disagree, I respect your opinion. Everyone has one. However you argue the fine points and minor details, though, it won't change the facts. Semantics aside, the .30 carbine round's place in history is assured; it did the job--and then some -- for what it was designed for whether or not it fits our definitions. Despite the Israeli's use of it, it is an obsolete cartdrige.

[REMOV]

The two main problems with Flechettes in the past have been accuracy and lethality.
There is last but not least problem - a special ammunition i.e. tracers, incendiary and signaling or armor piercing. Tracer SPIW flachette was an arrow with tiny "tail" made of magnesium, but it was a qualified success, it was only a tracer not incendiary round. So, military men were not satisfied... And the problem remains.

[REMOV]

Although it was the wrong example, I should have used the Soviet M1943 instead, I stand by the points I was making, which you, in your infinite wisdom
Sniff... sniff... Can I smell sarcasm?


so be patient as I correct your assertions: The official nomenclature for the German round is the "7.9 mm Infanterie Kurz Patrone," which, translated, as you probably know, to "7.9 mm Infantry Short Cartdrige".
I clearly show my impatience, but 7,92 x 33mm had a few names, and this one was only one of them. In the year 1941 German name was "7,9 Infanterie-Kurzpatrone", in 1942 "Maschinenkarabinerpatrone S", in 1943-44 "Pistolenpatrone 43 m.E. (PP43, PiPa43)" and finally in 1945 "Kurzpatrone 43 m.E." So tell me, what the other names tells You? ;)

Source: http://www.waffeninfo.net/mun_7,92x33_02.php


The only difference between it and the standard issue 7.92 is the "Kurz" has a case 33 mm long and 24.6 grains of propellant as opposed to the 57 mm case and 40-50 grains for the standard, they used the same bullet; therefor, it is a necked down version.
I wish I agreed with You, but... the bullets weren't the same. 7,92x33mm has 6,95g (8,19g) bullet and 7,92x57mm M03/05 has 12,8g. The bullet shapes were different. Chceck the bullet history, find previous German intermediate cartridges, check the calibres and the most important thing: REAL DIMENSIONS and proportions.
http://www.waffeninfo.net/munition/8x57_4.jpghttp://www.waffeninfo.net/munition/8x33_01.jpg

Source: http://world.guns.ru/ammo/am03-e.htm


Smith continues, "Essentially, cartridges of the size of the German 7.92mm short and the Soviet 7.62mm M1943 are cut down versions of full-sized rifle cartdriges."Ah, Argumentum ad verecundiam from Schopenhauer's eristic. Sorry, lad, but yours experts are not mine (if You want I can quote Russian or Polish experts ;) ) and...


If you still disagree, I respect your opinion. Everyone has one.... such words ploys aren't working on me. You know, I'm too old for this, so...


However you argue the fine points and minor details, though, it won't change the facts. ... the fact are:

- both rounds German and Russian have the same calibre

Explanation is simple: standardization, using the same machines in production process both rounds and barrels (as GazB notices) especially during the war.

I remind You that Russians had three the same calibre bullets: 7,62 x 25mm M30, 7,62 x 39mm M43 and 7,62 x 54mmR M1891/08.

- case and bullet shape: compeletly different in both German and Russian ammo. Have you ever saw 7,62 x 39mm and 7,62 x 54mmR case or bullet? Compare mass of one bullet and another. Is a 7,62mm M43 case Mosin case scaled down? So, where's the rim? Origins of M43 is completly different than "scaled down" Mosin round. And so on...

http://www.waffeninfo.net/munition/762x54r_02.jpghttp://www.waffeninfo.net/munition/762x39_03.jpg

Some authors used approximation and some people thoughlessness repeated their words. They have never seen rounds, they have never read intermediate cartridge history, and yet they quoted one sentence from the good book (I pressume that...) and try to built on such foundation their own classification system.

So, Are You still convince that the M43 was scaled down the M1891/03?


Semantics aside, the .30 carbine round's place in history is assured; it did the job--and then some -- for what it was designed for whether or not it fits our definitions. Despite the Israeli's use of it, it is an obsolete cartdrige.
You're right, but I've never disagreed that.

[GazB]

"Without intermediate round, the whole idea of assault rifle didn't exist. "

You are joking right?

The whole idea of an assault rifle was a dual purpose weapon that could be used at medium ranges as a rifle and at short ranges as a SMG.
Obviously using a full power rifle catridge makes such weapons as the FN FAL or AR-10 poor substitutes for SMGs in some circumstances... ie too much penetration and too much recoil, but as multipurpose weapons they are adequate. ie a assault rifle is a combination rifle.

"With a FN FAL You has a chance to hit a target 500m farther, with M16 You're not (only by chance). That's why guns with some similarities have different names. "

But in reality you probably wouldn't see a target at 500m and your likelyhood of hitting a fleeting camouflaged target at 500m with either rifle are low... unless you are a trained sniper with a good scope... and odds are if you are that sniper you'd have an Accuracy International or something.

"What for? Non sunt multiplicanda entia preater neccesitatem. "

Why adapt the number of round "types"... very simply because new round types have been created and don't fit properly into the previous system.

Where for example in your system would you put a .22lr round for the SV-99 short range sniper rifle?

"I disagree. That was 15mm HMG like FN MILO and it is a rifle not a cannon, 15,7mm Steyr AMR also was AntiMaterial RIFLE, also Croatian 20mm heavy sniper rifle RT-20 (not antipersonnel cannon, though) and 20mm South African NTW-20 (Aerotec). Upper limit for a rifle ammo is 20mm, not "above 12,7mm (or .50 if You like British system)". "

As I said Shells define a cannon. A 20mm anti material rifle might use a 20mm cannon shell, and while it might be an AMR it fires a cannon round.
The only direction that would likely move is down with viable HE rounds in 14.5mm and 12.7mm blurring the distinction.
(Cannons are rifled too... the distinguishing feature has in the past been that they fire shells... ie exploding bullets with a relatively large payload.)

The NWT-20 uses HE 20mm rounds only. For armour piercing work it can be fitted with a 14.5mm barrel. (the 20mm round it uses has such a low velocity that anything other than HE is not worth it).

"I know smoothbore assault rifle e.g. Steyr ACR, so it's a cannon?"

No, it is a gun... just like a 12 gauge.

"because a weapon has rifling or is rifled it doesnt make it a rifle."

A rifle is a shoulder fired weapon with a rifled barrel. If the weapon is not rifled then it is a musket or a gun (ie as in shotgun).

"i rifle is a catagory of guns that is named after this feature but not nessicarly defined by the presence of the feature if that makes sence."

Not, by that definition a shotgun is a rifle.



Quote:
Remember, the first intermediate rounds were necked down rifle cartdriges (Germans 8mm necked down to 7.92 Kurz and the U.S. 30.06 necked down to 7.62 Nato).

And second thing - the 7,62 x 51mm it ISN'T a intermediate round, it is normal rifle round with shortened case - a muzzle energy is THE SAME as in .30-06. The 7,62mm NATO has a new and better propellant, and cutting down the case doesn't mean that decreases a cartridge power.
_________________



The .243 hunting cartridge is a necked down .308 winchester (NATO), and a .270 is a necked down .30-06. Necking down is just using a smaller calibre with the same large case to increase velocity and reduce bullet weights to reduce recoil.

The .30-06 is slightly more powerful than the .308 NATO, though the latter operates at higher pressures and is quite comparable at lighter bullet weights. Bullet weights over 180grain the .30-06 is much better, and due to the extra cartridge capacity it can handle bullets that are too big for a .308 NATO. (ie 250 grain and heavier.)

Regarding the 8mm mauser round and the 7.92 x 33mm round... the problem is East/West. Different measuring methods (ie land to land or land to top of rifling) mean that one round can be called an 8mm round or a 7.92mm round. Both bores are the same calibre, just measured differently. (I am not suggesting the 7.92 x 33mm IS the same as the 8mm mauser rifle round but both have same calibre).

During WWII it was useful to be able to cut a mosin nagant rifle barrel in two and make two SMG barrels as the 7.62 x 54 and the 7.62 x 25 fit the same tubes... but in combat, under fire, with conscripts manning radios and old men and or women with no military experience receiving calls for 7.62mm ammo... and fast, you can imagine the surprise at the front line when the Machinegunner and the riflemen open the rear of the truck and see 30,000 rounds of pistol ammo for the commanders pistol but not ammo for anyone else. Later when PPSH SMGs were everywhere it was less of a problem, though having ammo for your main support weapons like your DP LMG is rather important.
This led to 122mm rockets being called Grads and nothing else to distinguish them from 122mm artillery rounds. It is also the main reason the current model Russian tanks have 125mm guns instead of 122mm as the ammo wouldn't have been compatible anyway. Equally the BMP-1 has a 73mm gun, not a standardised 76.2mm gun because it fires RPG like rockets anyway.

[XASA]

Yes Remov, I was being sarcastic. I also was attempting to be facetious, cynical and ironic :P

Despite your eloquent response, I still maintain that the .30 caliber Carbine is not an intermediate round, and that the first mass produced, general issue intermediate rounds are, basically, cut-down rifle cartdridges.

Since you feel your Russian and Polish sources are more expert than my American ones, any attempt at a serious dialogue or exchange of information on this subject doesn't seem possible; therefor, I can agree that we disagree. Perhaps we'll find common ground on another thread. Until then, good luck with your study of military minutiae.

[He219]

Ahm XASA, minor correction....


Despite your eloquent response, I still maintain that the .30 caliber Carbine is not an intermediate round, and that the first mass produced, general issue intermediate rounds are, basically, cut-down rifle cartdridges.

The .30 is considered to be an Intermediate Catridge. The first true Intermediate Cartridges mass produced were not 'cut down' Rifle Cartridges. The Fiocchi 9M38 cartridge for the Beretta MAB 38 (Moschetto Automatico Beretta 1938), a higher-powered 9 mm Parabellum with a range of about 200 m, is considered an Intermediate Cartridge for the MAB 38 SMG.

Remov wrote earlier....

The earliest known incarnation of the intermediate cartridge was an 8 x 42,5 mm round made by Rheinmetall-Borig in 1927. This round feeds self-loading rifle Gewehr 28. Next was an 8 x 46mm round manufactured by Rheinisch Westäflische Spregstoff AG (RWS) in 1934. This was followed in 1935 by a 7,75x40mm cartridge from Gustav Genschow & Co. (GeCo). Testing of the GeCo 7,75mm round continued until 1939, using a series of specially designed first German assault rifle, created by H. Vollmer called M35 or Apparat 35.
In 1939 both the round and the rifle were rejected. One interesting thing, though - this round real dimensions were nearly the same to... Russian 7,62 x 39mm M1943 ammunition. It's not a secret that Russians bought this GeCo round in late 30's.

Next one was 7 x 39mm round from Deutsche Waffen u. Munitionsfabriken AG (DWM). This round was originally developed for the Luftwaffe for an experimental Bergmann machine gun. Despite this, it was tested in an experimental Walther assault rifle, that was submitted to the government for testing in 1937 and 1938. (The same round was also tested in 1943 by Mauser in the experimental Gerat 06H machine carbine.)

In 1938, the Heereswaffenamt bucked the General Staff, and issued a a contract to the Polte Armaturen und Maschinenfabrik AG in Magdeburg for the development of an acceptable intermediate cartridge. The new round - 7,92 x 33mm (7.92 Kurz Patrone or Pistolenpatrone 43)- was accepted in 1941.

[according to Peter R. Senich, "The German Assault Rifle 1935-1945"]
_________________
REMOV


Purely Pedantics! No insult intended.

p-)
He219

[REMOV]

Yes Remov, I was being sarcastic. I also was attempting to be facetious, cynical and ironic :P
Clap! Clap! Clap! Nice try! :lol:

Despite your eloquent response, I still maintain that the .30 caliber Carbine is not an intermediate round, and that the first mass produced, general issue intermediate rounds are, basically, cut-down rifle cartdridges.
XASA as You said before despite your agree or not - it won't change the facts. And the fact is that the .30 round is an intermediate cartridge. As for intermediate rounds, I agree with You - they looks like scaled down rifle cartridge (besides everything, how they should looks like? ;) ) but the selected rounds (7,92x33mm or 7,62x39mm) origin are distinct than just cut-down Mauser or Mosin round. I show You exact dimensions - try to find the same propotions (maybe differential calculus will be helpful). Struggle with fact, XASA, not with the one book sentence.

Since you feel your Russian and Polish sources are more expert than my American ones, any attempt at a serious dialogue or exchange of information on this subject doesn't seem possible;
I'm very, terrible sorry, but I was your only argument not mine. I gave You facts not a quote from my book in (let's say) Polish, right? So, try to argue with facts not book quotes.

Perhaps we'll find common ground on another thread. Until then, good luck with your study of military minutiae.
Devil is in the details, so if You get bogged down in details how can You speak in general? :D

[REMOV]

"Without intermediate round, the whole idea of assault rifle didn't exist. "
You are joking right?
No, I'm not.

The whole idea of an assault rifle was a dual purpose weapon that could be used at medium ranges as a rifle and at short ranges as a SMG.
...and this condition was met only by intermediate rounds.

Obviously using a full power rifle catridge makes such weapons as the FN FAL or AR-10 poor substitutes for SMGs in some circumstances... ie too much penetration and too much recoil, but as multipurpose weapons they are adequate. ie a assault rifle is a combination rifle.
The FN FAL and G3 battle rifles are much closer to LMG such BAR or Bren M37 than real assault guns (real, means using intermediate ammo). In fact, they are very light LMGs looked back and compare them to WWIIs and earlier LMGs.

But in reality you probably wouldn't see a target at 500m and your likelyhood of hitting a fleeting camouflaged target at 500m with either rifle are low... unless you are a trained sniper with a good scope... and odds are if you are that sniper you'd have an Accuracy International or something.
It doesn't matter. Eg. in Polish Army FM a battle rifle is a gun capable to hit a target at distance to 200m by auto fire, to 400m by single fire, to 600m for sharpshooters using iron sights (to remind You, British WWIs and WWIIs .303 Enfield rifle FMs suggested that shooter was capable to hit accurate targets at about 1200m, and 7,62mm NATO is basically the same kind of round) and to 800m with group (simultaneous) or salvo fire.

Why adapt the number of round "types"... very simply because new round types have been created and don't fit properly into the previous system.
Therefore an intermediate rounds were separated, because it don't fit to any previous classification system.

Where for example in your system would you put a .22lr round for the SV-99 short range sniper rifle?
I'm expecting this question for some time now ;) The answer is simple - intermediate rounds have specific range of muzzle energy (1250-2500J) distinguished them from set of rifle rounds. So, .22LR is a rifle round.

As I said Shells define a cannon. A 20mm anti material rifle might use a 20mm cannon shell, and while it might be an AMR it fires a cannon round.
A semantic. Check the sources, e.g.http://www.rkba.org/guns/principles/definitions/gun-types.html. Cannon calibre started at 20mm, and the limit is not obvious. Some 20mm guns are rifles some are cannons. And some of them using 20mm cannon round but still are rifles not cannons.

The only direction that would likely move is down with viable HE rounds in 14.5mm and 12.7mm blurring the distinction.
You know, check the Belgium 15mm FN MILO or 15,2 Steyr AMR.

A rifle is a shoulder fired weapon with a rifled barrel. If the weapon is not rifled then it is a musket or a gun (ie as in shotgun).
So, Steyr ACR or Colt ACR were shotguns or maybe muskets (fusils)? ;) A musket is old weapon loaded at barrel side, it's main feature. A shotgun primary ammo (and a feature) is using shot, as name speaks. A flachette round semi and full auto gun with smoothbore rifle is an assault rifle, no doubt. Right, the name "rifle" comes from gun with rifled barrel, but that's only an etymology. BTW - 15,2mm Steyr AMR is also a smoothbore rifle ;) And... some shotguns like a slugster has often rifled barrels.

Not, by that definition a shotgun is a rifle.
... and naturally, You forget about the specific shotguns rounds?

The .243 hunting cartridge is a necked down .308 winchester (NATO), and a .270 is a necked down .30-06. Necking down is just using a smaller calibre with the same large case to increase velocity and reduce bullet weights to reduce recoil.
OK, but it hasn't lot in common to treat an intermediate 7,62x39mm or 7,92x33mm cartridges as "necked down" adequately 7,62x54mmR or 7,92x57mm rifle rounds.

Regarding the 8mm mauser round and the 7.92 x 33mm round... the problem is East/West. Different measuring methods (ie land to land or land to top of rifling) mean that one round can be called an 8mm round or a 7.92mm round.
Right, but we weren't talking about cartridge names (because "7,92 x 33mm" or "8x33mm" are only names hasn't a lot in common to the real bullet dimensions) but their origins.

[GazB]

"...and this condition was met only by intermediate rounds. "

Why can't an FN FAL or AR-10 meet the requirements of long range accuracy (relatively) plus short range firepower? It is afterall not used as a LMG... auto is only used at short range like in builtup areas.

...of course the simple truth is they can and are. You have your little inflexible system though...

" In fact, they are very light LMGs looked back and compare them to WWIIs and earlier LMGs. "

A SA80 at about 5kgs is heavier than most battle rifles. A LMG is for suppressive fire at medium ranges, the FN FAL would be inaccurate from the shoulder in full auto at medium ranges. The angle it recoils up would make rounds go over targets heads at medium ranges... at shorter ranges you'd get more rounds on target.

"It doesn't matter. Eg. in Polish Army FM a battle rifle is a gun capable to hit a target at distance to 200m by auto fire, to 400m by single fire, to 600m for sharpshooters using iron sights (to remind You, British WWIs and WWIIs .303 Enfield rifle FMs suggested that shooter was capable to hit accurate targets at about 1200m, and 7,62mm NATO is basically the same kind of round) and to 800m with group (simultaneous) or salvo fire. "

Yes, and a Mosin Nagant 1891/30 rifle has iron sights that go to 2km, and the AK-47 had sights up to 1,000m. Both of which were bollocks. Why should FMs get it right?
Experience in real combat shows that 200m might be possible but rarely would a soldier hit anything at greater range unless they were a sniper or a machinegunner.

"Therefore an intermediate rounds were separated, because it don't fit to any previous classification system. "

Light rifle? = assault rifle, Standard rifle = rifle round for battle rifle, heavy rifle = 9.4 x 63mm and .338 laupa magnum and other intermediate sniper rounds, HMG/AMR = 50 cal, 51 cal, 57 cal etc, and cannon has always included 20mm and up. (BTW if you think the NWT-20 makes any difference then the old anti tank rifles in 20mm should also have made a difference.. and they didn't... 20mm and up is a cannon round.)
(ie the 20 x 138mmB Lahti from Finland, the 20 x 138mmB PzB41 german rifle, the 20mm Model 97 Japanese rifle, and the Swiss 20 x 105B Solothurn were all anti tank rifles, but the ammo they fired was cannon ammo.)

Adapting a .308mm winchester round for a single shot pistol doesn't make the .308 win round a pistol round.
The 20mm cannon rounds existed before there were man portable rifles to fire them and they were all designed to be fired from automatic cannon.


"I'm expecting this question for some time now The answer is simple - intermediate rounds have specific range of muzzle energy (1250-2500J) distinguished them from set of rifle rounds. So, .22LR is a rifle round. "

Nice try... if a rifle round is not called a rifle round because it is not powerful enough as you say to fall in the 2,500J+ range how can a round even less powerful than an intermediate round be considered a rifle round?

If you are saying that a 7.62 x 39mm AK round is not powerful enough to be a rifle round how can a .22lr be considered a rifle round????

"Cannon calibre started at 20mm, and the limit is not obvious. Some 20mm guns are rifles some are cannons. "

The defintion of a cannon was based on the round the weapon initially fired. Heavy MG rounds were solid, 20mm were generally HE as they rarely had high enough velocity to be AP.
The lines have been blurred as I said, by the use of HE rounds for HMGs.

"And some of them using 20mm cannon round but still are rifles not cannons. "

A rifle can use a cannon round, but just because that rifle does use a cannon round it doesn't make that cannon round a rifle round.

A Thompson Contendor pistol can be chambered for almost any calibre from the weakest right up to very powerful rounds... including .50 Browning HMG rounds. Does that make all rounds pistol rounds?

"You know, check the Belgium 15mm FN MILO or 15,2 Steyr AMR. "

Sorry, I don't understand the relevance. I was pointing out that the definition of a cannon was if its ammo was HE... ie a shell or not (not meaning it was a standard bullet). If 12.7mm ammo is considered cannon ammo due to HE rounds thenwhat relevance does the two weapons you mentioned have?


"A musket is old weapon loaded at barrel side, it's main feature."

No, there were quite a few breach loading Muskets. The defining feature of a rifle is a rifled barrel. There were several muzzel loaded rifles, but the effort of forcing the bullet down a rifled barrel meant they were slow to load and unpopular... Slow to load and unpopular but also rifles.

"And... some shotguns like a slugster has often rifled barrels. "

Some do, but the purpose of a Shotgun is to fire shot. If its barrel is rifled then technically a Shotrifle.


"BTW - 15,2mm Steyr AMR is also a smoothbore rifle"

That is a contradiction in terms. It is actually a smoothbore gun. And an Anti Material Gun (AMG).

"OK, but it hasn't lot in common to treat an intermediate 7,62x39mm or 7,92x33mm cartridges as "necked down" adequately 7,62x54mmR or 7,92x57mm rifle rounds. "

I always thought the .243 would have made a better round for the military than a .223.

[Trigger]

This is like the energizer bunny thread....it just keeps going and going and going... :D

[REMOV]

Why can't an FN FAL or AR-10 meet the requirements of long range accuracy (relatively) plus short range firepower? It is afterall not used as a LMG... auto is only used at short range like in builtup areas.They meet the requirements (or similar) but due to round uses, are called "battle rifles" not "assault rifles".

BTW - I found something interesting: "ASSAULT RIFLE: By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power (sic! - RV). If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect. " Sources: http://www.savetheguns.com/glossary_of_terms.htm, http://www.nraila.org/FirearmsGlossary.asp.

A SA80 at about 5kgs is heavier than most battle rifles.
L85A1 (full load) weight is 4,3kg, L1A1 (full load) 5,0kg, M14 - 5,9kg, G3A4 - 5,3kg (with aluminium magazine, full load), 7,62mm Galil AR - 4,67kg. Compare to assault rifles: 5,6mm SG550 (Stgw 90) - 4,5kg, 5,56mm Galil AR (35rds magazine) - 4,62kg, Steyr AUG - 4,1kg. So, is or isn't havier than MOST of battle rifles?

A LMG is for suppressive fire at medium ranges, the FN FAL would be inaccurate from the shoulder in full auto at medium ranges.
That's why one's called it "battle rifle".

Yes, and a Mosin Nagant 1891/30 rifle has iron sights that go to 2km, and the AK-47 had sights up to 1,000m. Both of which were bollocks.
Right, but I wrote about REAL firing procedures and not about iron sights settings. The real oddity were iron sight sets in MP28II and Bergman MP18 to 1000m.

Light rifle? = assault rifle, Standard rifle = rifle round for battle rifle, heavy rifle = 9.4 x 63mm and .338 laupa magnum and other intermediate sniper rounds, HMG/AMR = 50 cal, 51 cal, 57 cal etc, and cannon has always included 20mm and up.
What is "light rifle" - a carbine? There's not such thing like "heavy rifle" in military vocabulary (don't mix up with HMG).

(BTW if you think the NWT-20 makes any difference then the old anti tank rifles in 20mm should also have made a difference.. and they didn't... 20mm and up is a cannon round.)
GazB, read once again your own words, there were "AT RIFLES" not "AT light cannons" or "AT individual cannons" or so... So, NTW-20 is also a rifle. Antimaterial or AT, as You wish, but still rifle.

(ie the 20 x 138mmB Lahti from Finland, the 20 x 138mmB PzB41 german rifle, the 20mm Model 97 Japanese rifle, and the Swiss 20 x 105B Solothurn were all anti tank rifles, but the ammo they fired was cannon ammo.)
...and we talking mostly about called them RIFLES, right? And they used only AP rounds, right? And those rounds (most of them) was dedicated to the RIFLES. So, tell me, once again, if rifle uses cannon round (suppose You'e right) it's called rifle, right? On the same principle rifle with smoothbore barrel using flachette cartridge is an assault rifle.

Nice try... if a rifle round is not called a rifle round because it is not powerful enough as you say to fall in the 2,500J+ range how can a round even less powerful than an intermediate round be considered a rifle round? If you are saying that a 7.62 x 39mm AK round is not powerful enough to be a rifle round how can a .22lr be considered a rifle round????Uffff... once again (uh, looks like a never-ending job): "intermediate rounds have specific range of muzzle energy (1250-2500J) distinguished them from set of rifle rounds". So, if rifle round is weaker than 1200J or stronger than 2500J is a rilfe round. An intermediate rounds were designed ONLY for military purposes, so in this way are distinguished from other rifle rounds.

Heavy MG rounds were solid, 20mm were generally HE as they rarely had high enough velocity to be AP.
Modern 20mm cannons had RARELY high enough velocity to be AP? 20mm Mk149 APDS (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mk149.htm), also 20mm M52 API, M601, M775 API-T. So, 20mm Mk149 APDS round has m.v. = 1110m/s; compare to 12,7x99mm (.50BMG) - 850-1036m/s (1036m/s has got a tracer M23), 12,7x107mm - 840m/s, 14,5x114mm - 1000m/s, 15x115mm (FN BRG-15) - 976m/s.

So let's check the variety of - for example - 20mm US ammo (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/20mm.htm)
Et voila. So, let's check m.v. and AP rounds ;)

A Thompson Contendor pistol can be chambered for almost any calibre from the weakest right up to very powerful rounds... including .50 Browning HMG rounds. Does that make all rounds pistol rounds?
Naturally not. Also .50BMG pistol Maadi Griffin is not a HMG.

I was pointing out that the definition of a cannon was if its ammo was HE... ie a shell or not (not meaning it was a standard bullet). If 12.7mm ammo is considered cannon ammo due to HE rounds...
What? 12,7mm HE rounds are considered as cannon ammo?! They're still rifle rounds. The fact is that the gun (or machinegun) uses HE round do not automatically change it into a cannon. There are modern .50BMG HE cartridges e.g. 12,7mm Mk 211 Raufoss MP/HEIAP or FN HEPI rounds and attempts at creating a 12,7mm HE cartridge predate WWII.

Mk211 Raufoss MP/HEIAP and FN HEPI
http://www.barrettrifles.com/images/test_explosive2.jpghttp://www.barrettrifles.com/images/test_explosive3.jpg
Source:http://www.barrettrifles.com/test_explosive.html


...thenwhat relevance does the two weapons you mentioned have?
Both FN MILO and Steyr AMR uses over 14,7mm rounds (15mm and 15,2mm), both cartridges are typical AP rounds, and both guns are rifles. BTW - during WWII the Germans were using 15mm and 20mm machineguns (i.e. HMGs not cannons)MG-151/15 (http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/mg151.html) and MG-151/20 (http://www.namil.com/dokil/mg151.html).
Some do, but the purpose of a Shotgun is to fire shot. If its barrel is rifled then technically a Shotrifle.
A what? "Shotrifle"? It's your next own term? ;)

That is a contradiction in terms. It is actually a smoothbore gun. And an Anti Material Gun (AMG).
Aren't You tired to fight with the whole world? It is a AntiMaterial Rifle, no doubt, regardless of You accepted that or not :lol:

But, tell me, what smoothbarrels weapons such Steyr ACR or Colt ACR are? An acronym "ACR" means Advanced Combat Rifle...

[He219]

BTW - during WWII the Germans were using 15mm and 20mm machineguns (i.e. HMGs not cannons)MG-151/15 and MG-151/20.

Oh Yeah? What about the Oerlikon MG FF/M, not a Cannon? I would think that platform integration has something to do with making the HMG's referenced into aircraft mounted Cannons.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/lrg0155.jpg
Mg 151/20 Aircraft Machine Guns :

Manufacturer: Waffenfabrik Mauser AG
Caliber: 20mm
Weight: N/A
Muzzle Velocity: 2,590 fps
Rate Of Fire: 750 rnds/min
Round Types: Explosive/Incendiary, Armor Piercing, Armor Piercing/Electron Incendiary
Round Weights: N/A

http://users.hol.gr/~nowi/luftarm/mk108logo1.jpg

Rheinmetall-Borsing MK 108

http://users.hol.gr/%7Enowi/luftarm/mk214a.jpg

50mm MK 214A

You really don't think these are Aircraft Cannons but rather Heavy Mg's?

;)
He219

[He219]

Machine gun
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A machine gun is a small-calibre fully automatic projectile weapon. Generally any "machine gun" with a calibre of more than 12.5mm is called an automatic cannon, even through it might operate the same way.

[FallenAngel]

hmm....the dictionary has a typo. Should be "though" not "through" ;)

[REMOV]

Oh Yeah? What about the Oerlikon MG FF/M, not a Cannon?
Naturally, it is a cannon. Don't blame on me, the Germans themselfs called MG151 (both 15mm and 20mm, becouse both weapons were nearly the same, only difference was a calibre) machineguns not cannons.

You really don't think these are Aircraft Cannons but rather Heavy Mg's?
Of course, not - they are over 20mm calibre! But 20mm MG151 according to the German sources was a HMG.


MG 151
The heavy MG 151 was also originally an aircraft machine gun that later was used in the ground role. The weapon, produced by the company Mauser since 1940, in the version MG151/15 had a caliber of 15mm, a length of 191.7 cm, a barrel length of 125.0 cm and weighed 41.5 kg, which required the use of a small two-wheeled mount. The ammunition used was the Panzergranaten-Patrone 15mm. It had a cartridge length of 147mm, weighed 165g, which includes the projectile that had a length of 67mm and weighed 72mm. The propellant of 24g of gunpowder made for a V0 of 850m/s, rate of fire was originally 700/min. the MG 151 was belt-fed. Most of the MG 151 used in the ground role were used as air defense mounts. Again, numbers of army-conversions are unclear, even total production of the MG 151 15mm gun is hard to estimate since the production number of 249,609 includes a large majority of MG151/20, the 20mm version of the same type (both weapons are completely identical apart from the caliber) weapon rarely used in the ground role (but only in fixed AA emplacements).
Source: http://users.bigpond.net.au/feckless/German%20mgs.html

[REMOV]

Generally any "machine gun" with a calibre of more than 12.5mm is called an automatic cannon
So, according to this definition 14,5mm KPV is an automatic cannon not a machine gun? Also FN MILO (aka BRG-15 (http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg26-e.htm)) ;)

15mm machine gun FN MILO/BRG-15:
http://210.79.226.16:81/cetin2/report/s-weapon/gun/jq/FN%20BRG-15.jpg

[He219]

REMOV, Mauser Werke used the same MG151 Weapon Design but chambered for a more powerful 20mm round. The MG designation does not automatically mean that it is not a cannon though. Mauser improved upon that desing and properly renamed it:

Automatic Cannon Mauser MK 20 RH 202
Rheinmetall AG
http://www.mauser-online.com/images/produktbereiche/heer_mk20_bild_1.gifhttp://www.mauser-online.com/images/logo.gif


Technical Data
Calibre: 20 mm x 139
Weight incl. barrel: 83 kg with double feeder, 75 kg with single feeder
Rate of fire: 1,000 rds/min
Dimensions Length: 2,612 mm
Dimensions Height: 241 mm with double feeder, 259 mm with single feeder
A complete family of ammunition in the NATO 20 mm x 139 calibre is available for the numerous applications of the MK 20 RH 202.


Thus, as Mauser-Werke Itself calls it, the 20mm Maschinenkanone MK is indeed a Cannon as is the previous 20mm automatic.

http://www.mauser-online.com/de/produktbereiche/index.htm

Straight from the makers.....

p-)
He219

[He219]

Yeah, it also says:

the most powerful machine gun ever made

the company decided to shelve this project in the early 1990s, in the favour of the P90 PDW / submacinegun

The most powerful MG ever made - in favor of a - Submacinegun? A matter of perspective. I say that if they can not spell check, then what qualifies it to be the most powerful?

I agree that Wikipedia probably shoud have mentioned larger than .50 Caliber(12.7mm) calibers as 'qualifying' to be for Automatic Cannons along with better spelling as FallenAngel pointed out. Again, I believe that platform integration also has a lot to do with configuring an Automatic Cannon.

Remember where this started:

What? 12,7mm HE rounds are considered as cannon ammo?! They're still rifle rounds.

The point is that a 20mm round can be used in either an Automatic Cannon, an Anti-Material Gun or Rifle.

;)
He219

[He219]

REMOV, further analysis of your links indicate the following:

KPV-14,5
http://world.guns.ru/machine/kpv.jpg

This MG may be used as infantry fire support weapon on wheeled mount or as vehicle weapon (mounted in turrets of thousands of BTR-70, BTR-80 APCs and BRDM-2 armored recon vehicles). Also used in single or double AA mounts.

BRG-15
http://world.guns.ru/machine/brg15.jpg

The gun had feed mode selector at the rear of the receiver, and, when used on tripod mount, a set of spade grips to control the gun.

After the testing it was found that the 15mm ammunition caused fast barrel wear, so gun and ammunition had been redesigned: new bullets had driving bands to follow the rifling (like the large caliber artilery shells), and barrel caliber was increased to 15.5mm and barrel had been lenghtened.

These clearly are automatic cannons (large caliber HMG's). You certainly can call them HMG but they also qualify as Cannons.

As for 20mm being a rifle round....

20mm version, built around WW2-era German MG-151 aircraft gun round Reference to the NTW-20 anti-materiel rifle (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn55-e.htm)

;)
He219

[James]

So, I have a suggestion. Because of the title of this forum and the options provided for voting, why doesn't everyone pick one of these weapons systems. If someone has a notion of something that should be included, it should be limited to a system that is normally operated by one person. I pick the M-16 family. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

[GazB]

"There's not such thing like "heavy rifle" in military vocabulary (don't mix up with HMG). "

So a .338 Laupa Magnum round used solely for sniping and reaching areas a 308 is too short legged for, but not as big and expensive as a HMG round (from a rifle that is not as big or as expensive as a rifle that uses HMG rounds) is just an ordinary rifle round.... OK.


"L85A1 (full load) weight is 4,3kg, L1A1 (full load) 5,0kg, M14 - 5,9kg, G3A4 - 5,3kg (with aluminium magazine, full load), 7,62mm Galil AR - 4,67kg. Compare to assault rifles: 5,6mm SG550 (Stgw 90) - 4,5kg, 5,56mm Galil AR (35rds magazine) - 4,62kg, Steyr AUG - 4,1kg. So, is or isn't havier than MOST of battle rifles?
"

It must have lost weight then... according to Hogg and Weeks an L85A1 with a loaded mag and sight weigh 4.98kgs.
Equally the MP43 weighed 5.1kgs, yet is still considered an assault rifle.
An SVD, at 4.3kgs loaded with sight almost sounds light. And the Tokarev SVT40 at 3.9kgs empty.

"There's not such thing like "heavy rifle" in military vocabulary (don't mix up with HMG). "

What HMG round? You have said yourself that there are both 50, 51, and 57 calibre rifles. According to your system HMG rounds don't exist... they are rifle rounds.

"GazB, read once again your own words, there were "AT RIFLES" not "AT light cannons" or "AT individual cannons" or so... So, NTW-20 is also a rifle. Antimaterial or AT, as You wish, but still rifle."

I agree that the NWT-20 has a rifled barrel and therefore is a rifle. THe disagreement is the ammo. 20mm is cannon ammo. Whether it is fired from a cannon or not. (9mm ammo hasn't become SMG ammo... it is considered pistol ammo still.)

"On the same principle rifle with smoothbore barrel using flachette cartridge is an assault rifle. "

If it is smoothbore then there is no reason to put rifle in the name so it can't be an assault RIFLE. Also it is hardly likely to be used in the role of SMG for close in defence so it fails to get assualt justified either.


Quote:
Heavy MG rounds were solid, 20mm were generally HE as they rarely had high enough velocity to be AP.

Modern 20mm cannons had RARELY high enough velocity to be AP? 20mm Mk149 APDS, also 20mm M52 API, M601, M775 API-T. So, 20mm Mk149 APDS round has m.v. = 1110m/s; compare to 12,7x99mm (.50BMG) - 850-1036m/s (1036m/s has got a tracer M23), 12,7x107mm - 840m/s, 14,5x114mm - 1000m/s, 15x115mm (FN BRG-15) - 976m/s.


Nice try. Misquoting can be fun, but rarely is it useful to a sensible discussion.

If you repeat what I said fully:

"The defintion of a cannon was based on the round the weapon initially fired. Heavy MG rounds were solid, 20mm were generally HE as they rarely had high enough velocity to be AP. "

It is rather obvious that I was referring to early examples of 20mm guns, but you change it to :

"Modern 20mm cannons had RARELY high enough velocity to be AP?"

I didn't say modern, and if I did the only modern AMR rifle using 20mm is the NWT-20 and that only uses a light low powered 20mm round with little AP power that relies for effectiveness as an AMR on its HE charge. For AP power you change the barrel and bolt and a few other bits and use a high velocity .57 cal round.

"Also .50BMG pistol Maadi Griffin is not a HMG. "

Does it make the .50BMG round a pistol round?

"There are modern .50BMG HE cartridges e.g. 12,7mm Mk 211 Raufoss MP/HEIAP or FN HEPI rounds and attempts at creating a 12,7mm HE cartridge predate WWII. "

That is why I suggested the lines were becoming blurred. Early attempts at HE rounds for HMGs were not particularly effective. More modern and more powerful explosives however have blurred the lines... as I said.

"BTW - during WWII the Germans were using 15mm and 20mm machineguns (i.e. HMGs not cannons)MG-151/15 and MG-151/20. "

That is a terminology problem. A machine gun is a mechanised gun and can be applied to almost any gun that self loads... including 130mm naval guns.
The commonly accepted division is that weapons tht fire predominately shells are called cannons... ie 20mm and up. Anything below that is a rifle or HMG or MMG or LMG etc etc right down to pistol.


A what? "Shotrifle"? It's your next own term?
Not my term, just applying common rules. A rifled longarm is a rifle unless it qualifies as a MG or whatever. At 12 Guage it is also able to fire shot rounds and therefore could be called a shotrifle. It is not a gun, as a gun either has no rifleing or if it does it is a weapon above cannon... ie Direct firing it is a gun, indirect it is a howitzer. Modern weapons have variable charges and high elevation capability but also long barrels and are therefore commonly gunhowitzers.

"It is a AntiMaterial Rifle, no doubt, regardless of You accepted that or not "

Tell me its rifing pitch and I'll agree it is a rifle.

"But, tell me, what smoothbarrels weapons such Steyr ACR or Colt ACR are? An acronym "ACR" means Advanced Combat Rifle..."

They were named ACR because the program was called ACR. All the entries were called ACR. Even if you entered a directed energy weapon that used a laser to kill the enemy it would have been called ACR.

[LORD_BUNGLA]

OC-Groza is da best

[REMOV]

These clearly are automatic cannons (large caliber HMG's). You certainly can call them HMG but they also qualify as Cannons.
Nope. Take a look at 12,7mm (.50) HMG also may be used as infantry fire support weapon on wheeled mount or as vehicle weapon mounted in turrets (e.g. HMMWV, M113). Also used in single or double AA mounts. So, Browning is also automatic cannon? The cannon vs. machine guns calibre limit is 20mm not "over 12,7mm". And that's not "my" opinion, they are HMGs by definition - open JANE's Infantry Weapons and check - 14,5mm KPV and 15mm FN MILO are considered as HMGs. Check the Russian website also - http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg00-e.htm. So...?

[REMOV]

REMOV, Mauser Werke used the same MG151 Weapon Design but chambered for a more powerful 20mm round. The MG designation does not automatically mean that it is not a cannon though.
As GazB said, the limits are blurred. The Germans themselfs called both weapons as HMGs, in my country military books MG151/20 is treated as upper limit for HMGs. Naturally You're right, that the "MG" designation doesn't mean that it is or is not a AC or HMG, I'm avare of this fact.

Thus, as Mauser-Werke Itself calls it, the 20mm Maschinenkanone MK is indeed a Cannon as is the previous 20mm automatic.
Nope. There aren't strict borders between AC and HMG. 20mm wepon may be cannons or machineguns. Sorry, but it isn't my idea :|

Straight from the makers....
Check also what the makers wrote during WWII about MG151/20, You'll be surprised :lol:

[REMOV]

OC-Groza is da best
The real OC-14 Groza users aren't so convinced as You are :lol:

[REMOV]

So a .338 Laupa Magnum round (...) is just an ordinary rifle round.... OK.
Certainly, it is the rifle round. "Ordinary" or not, doesn't matter. Tell me what is the criterion for division? Case length? Muzzle velocity? Muzzle energy?


L85A1 (full load) weight is 4,3kg, L1A1 (full load) 5,0kg, M14 - 5,9kg, G3A4 - 5,3kg (with aluminium magazine, full load), 7,62mm Galil AR - 4,67kg. Compare to assault rifles: 5,6mm SG550 (Stgw 90) - 4,5kg, 5,56mm Galil AR (35rds magazine) - 4,62kg, Steyr AUG - 4,1kg. So, is or isn't havier than MOST of battle rifles?
It must have lost weight then... according to Hogg and Weeks an L85A1 with a loaded mag and sight weigh 4.98kgs.
Nice try, GazB, to compare weight battle rifles without optical sights to assault rifle with them. I show You the L85A1 weight without SUSAT with iron sights. So, add about 0,5kg (optical sight) to all battle rifles weight and than once again try to compare weight.

Equally the MP43 weighed 5.1kgs, yet is still considered an assault rifle.
That was the first assault rifle. Compare the first SMG weight to modern ones.

An SVD, at 4.3kgs loaded with sight almost sounds light. And the Tokarev SVT40 at 3.9kgs empty.
So what?

What HMG round? You have said yourself that there are both 50, 51, and 57 calibre rifles. According to your system HMG rounds don't exist... they are rifle rounds.
HMGs are fed by rifle rounds. But to be honest, some sources distingush and defines HMGs rounds as "12,7 to 20mm rifle rounds, with 15000 to 30000J m.e.".

I agree that the NWT-20 has a rifled barrel and therefore is a rifle. THe disagreement is the ammo. 20mm is cannon ammo. Whether it is fired from a cannon or not. (9mm ammo hasn't become SMG ammo... it is considered pistol ammo still.)
As I said 20mm is upper limit for rifle ammo, so some of 20mm round are (or may be) and some aren't rifle cartridges. I agreed that some rifles uses cannon rounds. Tell me, what 20mm round name should be if that round would be only AP? Cannon or rifle round?

Misquoting can be fun, but rarely is it useful to a sensible discussion.
You're right. My fault, sorry.

I didn't say modern, and if I did the only modern AMR rifle using 20mm is the NWT-20...
...also 20mm Croatian RT-20 and 20mm Finnish APH-20.

Not my term, just applying common rules.
Some common rules are fits and some are not. A "shotrifle" is your own term, "gunhowitzer" is in common use. This kind of shotguns have their own name - "slugsters".

I cut some threads, they comes to nowhere, and change into semantic dispute not military.

[James]

No comment - simply seeing how many pages we can push this to...

[GazB]

"Certainly, it is the rifle round. "Ordinary" or not, doesn't matter. Tell me what is the criterion for division? Case length? Muzzle velocity? Muzzle energy?"

Intended role. It is to bridge the gap between 800m and 1200m where the .308 lacks range and power, but 50 cal rifles are too big/expensive/powerful for the role.

"Nice try, GazB, to compare weight battle rifles without optical sights to assault rifle with them. I show You the L85A1 weight without SUSAT with iron sights. So, add about 0,5kg (optical sight) to all battle rifles weight and than once again try to compare weight. "

I included the weight of the scope for waepons that carry scopes as standard. Hence the SA-80 and the SVD weights include scopes.

"That was the first assault rifle. Compare the first SMG weight to modern ones. "

So we then establish weight as being immaterial in the definition then?

"Nope. Take a look at 12,7mm (.50) HMG also may be used as infantry fire support weapon on wheeled mount or as vehicle weapon mounted in turrets (e.g. HMMWV, M113). Also used in single or double AA mounts. So, Browning is also automatic cannon? The cannon vs. machine guns calibre limit is 20mm not "over 12,7mm". And that's not "my" opinion, they are HMGs by definition - open JANE's Infantry Weapons and check - 14,5mm KPV and 15mm FN MILO are considered as HMGs. "

As I have mentioned the division is defined as shell projectiles. In the past that meant 20mm. Now such a definition could include HMGs through the improvements in power in HE charges and design of shells.

"As I said 20mm is upper limit for rifle ammo, so some of 20mm round are (or may be) and some aren't rifle cartridges. "

So you can't talk about a Rifle or Cannon "calibre" if that calibre can be the same. (ie .308 is a rifle calibre, but if 20mm is both a rifle calibre and a cannon calibre then it is neither and both.)

"You're right. My fault, sorry."

No need to appologise, from your location I am guessing English is not your first language. With this in mind misunderstandings are natural, though your English is excellent BTW.

"This kind of shotguns have their own name - "slugsters". "

An American term... though you will notice my term is more accurate in that it is obvious that the weapon is a rifled weapon. I have a smoothbore shotgun with a cylinder bore (ie no choke) which I use to fire Slugs and could call it a slugster too. (it has rifle type sights especially for firing slugs).

"...also 20mm Croatian RT-20 and 20mm Finnish APH-20."

Would be interested in hearing more about them if you have any links... :-)

[ibstolidude]

AA's Beowulf:
http://www.alexanderarms.com/images/hsg.jpg

http://www.gunblast.com/images/50Beowulf/Mvc-005f.jpg

Jesus, that .50 looks so HUGE sitting by a .223/5.56.

just for fun....
or engine blocks :)

All good shooters shoot to the man goes down for good, I guess some wish to shoot less then others.

[REMOV]

Intended role.The same answer over and over again, huh? ;)

It is to bridge the gap between 800m and 1200m where the .308 lacks range and power, but 50 cal rifles are too big/expensive/powerful for the role.Right, but a new name for such round in my opinion is unnecessary.

I included the weight of the scope for waepons that carry scopes as standard. Hence the SA-80 and the SVD weights include scopes.The L85Ax has no such thing as standard version, both versions with and without SUSAT are in British Army service. Royal Marines or Royal Engineers uses L85A2 with iron scope. Check the photos. Naturally there are rifles with standard scopes e.g. Steyr AUG, but L85A2 it is not such weapon. So, compare weight of all weapons - both assault and battle rifles with scopes (or without).
http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/Gulf_War_2_British_Forces_Operation_Telic/optelic146.jpg

So we then establish weight as being immaterial in the definition then?Of course, not. Weight is material thing, but it isn't most importatnt.

As I have mentioned the division is defined as shell projectiles.The most important thing is the calibre. If you produces 7,62mm HE round (it isn't impossible), then it be automatically change into cannon round?

So you can't talk about a Rifle or Cannon "calibre" if that calibre can be the same. As you wrote limits sometimes are blurred.

(ie .308 is a rifle calibre, but if 20mm is both a rifle calibre and a cannon calibre then it is neither and both.)If - as you said - cannon round definition is based only on shells (i.e. are HE or not) than 20mm AP ammunition (only this type produces) uses in AMR will be rifle round or not? We come back to old WWII era AT rifles...

An American term... They lives with their guns, so they have many terms the rest of the world haven't ;)

Would be interested in hearing more about them if you have any links... :-)
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn56-e.htm

The RT20 was developed primarily to penetrate the armored casing around the thermal sight head on M84 tanks (a 20-mm round was the smallest caliber that could penetrate the casing). During the war in the former Yugoslavia, M84s were frequently deployed to detect Croatian infantry moving at night, so a method of removing their nightvision capability was found with this RT20 “hand cannon”.

[He219]

REMOV, your Automatic Cannon classification is hasty and inaccurate. You may have exceptional weapons referencing skills, but here are some facts on Automatic Cannon Calibers.

The KPV-14.5 and BRG-15 are indeed Machine Guns. They could also be used as small caliber Automatic Cannons because of a capability to fire High Explosive Munitions. The KPV fires a 14.5-mm API, I-T or HE-T Type MDZ. The BRG was changed from a 15mm round to a cannon-like ammo with plastic 'driving bands', the 15.5x106mm round. The BRG was never fielded and was marketed as fitting a role between the 20mm Cannon and the 12.7mm MG. 15.5x106mm BRG ammo is even rarer to research but I assume it to be practically feasible that HE rounds would be employed had it gone into production. THE BRG is unique in that it has belt-feed from both the right and left side to allow selection of specific ammuniton types, plus a single-shot selector for use with special ammo. So what defines the Caliber size to be an Automatic Cannon?

http://www.zid.ru/images/products/military/kpvt_big.jpg
The powerful 14.5 mm KPVT automatic tank gun fires Cartridges with armour-piercing-incendiary B-32 bullets, armor-piercing-tracer BZT bullets and MDZ incendiary bullets 'of instant action' for surface and air targets. http://www.zid.ru/en/products/military/kpvt.html

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/zpu-4-DDST8501309_JPG.jpg
ZPU-4 AAA http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/zpu-4.htm
How did this get from MG to Artillery?


Let's back up a bit to where I left off...


Oh Yeah? What about the Oerlikon MG FF/M, not a Cannon?

Naturally, it is a cannon. Don't blame on me, the Germans themselfs called MG151 (both 15mm and 20mm, becouse both weapons were nearly the same, only difference was a calibre) machineguns not cannons.

You really don't think these are Aircraft Cannons but rather Heavy Mg's?

Of course, not - they are over 20mm calibre! But 20mm MG151 according to the German sources was a HMG.

REMOV, you did agree that the Oerlikon MG FF/M, is a cannon. It fired a 20x80RB as did the following German Guns:

MG c/30L 20 x 138B
MG-FF 20 x 80RB
MG-FF/M 20 x 80RB
MG 151/20 20 x 82
MG 213C/20 20 x 135

If both the Oerlikon MG and the MG 151 fire an explosive 20mm round, how would the the MG 151 not be considered a Cannon? The reference you listed focuses on the 15mm MG 151 and is a poor justification for both your rationale and as a 'German' source that the MG 151 is only a Machine Gun and not a Cannon. The integration of large caliber HE munitions defines Machine Guns as Automatic Cannons. Certainly the 20 mm MG qualifies as a Cannon.

Note that the Oerlikon is also classified as an MG. You yourself stated that 'Naturally, it is a Cannon'.

Lets look at the explosive munitions that actually classify the MG 151/20 and other Cannons. High Explosive rounds were traditionally made by boring out the core of a solid projectile and filling it with explosive. The German Minengeschoß introduced a thin shell munufacturing technique. This resulted in a much larger explosive capacity for the same caliber and became widespread after the war.

The following information is from 'Merkbuch über die Munition' Berlin, 1944.
http://www.jannousiainen.net/galleries/luftwaffe_ammunition/group_01.jpg
From left: MG 131 AP, MG 151 AP, MG FFM HE, MG 151/20 HE

German 15 mm (MG 151) Aircraft Ammunition Belt Composition consisted of:
4 Brandsprenggranatpatronen L'spur m. Zerl (conventional HE/I/T w/o SD)
1 Panzergranatpatrone L'spur o. Zerl (AP/T w/o SD)

An AP round was used to destroy the muzzle cap otherwise a HE round could go off. Note L'spur, Leuchtspur (Tracer), and o. Zerl, ohne Zerlegerung (without Self-Destruct). It was common to use a combined self-destruct fuse and tracer: The projectile exploded when the tracer was burnt out. On some projectiles, special self-destruct fuses were used. The MG 151 was a high-velocity weapon and for ground attack missions Hartkernmunition (AP with a tungsten core) was loaded.

German 20 mm (MG 151) Aircraft Ammunition Belt Composition consisted of:
2 Minengeschoß m. Zerl. (the first use of large HE 'Mine' Munition - with Fuse)
2 Brandsprenggranatpatronen L'spur m. Zerl oder Brandgranatpatronen (HE/I/T with Fuse or pure Incendiary)
1 Panzersprenggranatpatrone o. Zerl oder Panzerbrandgranatpatrone Phospor o. Zerl. (AP/HE/Incendiary without Self-Destruct or AP/I White Phosphorous without Fuse)

http://www.geocities.com/russianammo/MG151-20.jpg


The cartridges shown above are for the German MG 151/20 (20x81):
"Minensprenggranate mit Zerleger" (HEI-SD) mine shell, m=92,0g, l=82,9mm, 18g high explosive, Vo=785m/s, ol=146,1mm, 14,8g Nz.R.P. (1,3x1,45/0,2) propellant, electrical primer "J", headstamp: exw | 8 | 45 , yellow projectile with green band below fuze, black markings: M El exw 91 45 Mv exw 263/44 ,

"Panzerbrandgranate Phosphor ohne Zerleger" (API) Phosphorous shell, m=115g, l=80,0mm, 3,6g White Phosphorous in sealed Aluminum container, Vo=720m/s, ol=145,5mm, 14,8g Nz.R.P. (1,3x1,45/0,2) propellant, percussion primer, headstamp: wg | 593 | 44 , black bullet with blue band above bourolet, white
markings: Ph edq 335/44, stamped in markings: eel 147/44



German 'High Velocity' 30 mm (MK 101 & 103) Aircaft Ammunition Composition:
1 Sprenggranatpatrone L'Spur o. Zerl
1 Minengeschoß L'Spur o. Zerl
1 Panzersprenggranatpatrone L'Spur o. Zerl oder Panzerbrandsprenggranatpatrone L'Spur o. Zerl

The MK 103 was a high-velocity weapon with a much better armor penetration than the MK 108. Note the addition of the older type of HE round and semi-AP. The exception were the nightfighters, which used only the Minengeschoß with a glowing trace (Gl'spur). For anti-tank missions, Hartkernmunition with tungsten cores was used, but it would be wasteful to use this scarce ammunition against aircraft.

German 'Low Velocity' 30mm (MK 108) Aircraft Ammunition:
Only Minengeschoß 108 El o. Zerl. (Incendiary without Fuse) was used.

Only the Minengeschoß was fired by the MK 108, also in versions with day or night tracer. The ammunition was not interchangeable with that of the much more powerful MK 101 and MK 103.


There are a lot of references to the MG 151/15 as also being an Automatic Cannon. One can argue to it's use of Fused Explosive Charges. Granted the volume of the Minengeschoß delivered greater explosive charge, but what makes the 15 mm (MG 151) Brandsprenggranatpatronen L'spur m. Zerl different to the 20 mm (MG 151) Brandsprenggranatpatronen L'spur m. Zerl other than Caliber? They both are High Explosive Incindeary Tracers with Fuses and they are both dual purpose MG and Cannon ammmo. The advent of the exclusive automatic electric ignition aircraft Cannon designation certainly ended all future clasification misnomers.

Even the Tenth Round of 7.92 mm (MG17) Aircraft Ammuniton used a small HE charge and some Incendiary, the B-Geschoß, a Beobachtungs Patrone or observation round. It exploded upon contact and the pilot was able to verify that he was hitting the target. During the Battle of Britain, the British used the Dixon-De Wilde round for similar purposes, and pilots generally felt that this was extremely useful. This is an example of how small HE rounds can be employed though they certainly don't make Automatic Cannons.

Incidentally the USSR had earlier followed the same route as MG 151. The first model of the ShVAK aircraft cannon was chambered for a rimmed, 12.7x99R cartridge. This was not much of a performer, so the case was necked up to 20mm caliber to make their standard WW2 aircraft cannon. It was fitted to Soviet fighters throughout the war but in 1945 it was replacemend with the much lighter B-20. The B-20 was one of the best aircraft guns of the war.

Ironically the US applied the same lesson as the Germans had with the MG151 and necked up the case of the T17 aircraft machine gun to form the 20mm M39 round which has been the standard USAF cannon cartridge since the 1950s. Its most famous application is in the six-barrelled rotary M61 Vulcan cannon, which also serves as the business end of the Phalanx anti-missile system.

Then there is the matter of Machine Gun classification:

Traditionally one distinguishes rifle-calibre and medium-calibre machineguns. The latter are often called heavy machineguns (HMGs), but this can lead to confusion because that term is also applied to some rifle-calibre machineguns. Rifle-calibre machine guns (RCMGs) range from 7.5 mm to 8 mm. Medium-calibre weapons are .50 and similar, in practice ranging from 11 mm to 15 mm. The bullet is up to four times heavier than that of a rifle-calibre machinegun, and can be fired at a high muzzle velocity. Hence it usually has good ballistic characteristics. The rate of fire is usually much lower than that of rifle-calibre weapons.

So the 'limit' for cannon calibers is a loose definition pending on the capability and type of ammunition used. It is commonly assumed that HE ammunition is really effective only in calibers of 20mm or larger, but it was also made for 12.7mm and even rifle-calibre weapons. Usually light and heavy machineguns were loaded with a mixture of incendiary and armour-piercing rounds. Such ammunition also exists for 20 mm cannon, so the projectile may not necessarily always be high-explosive.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/feckless/files/germany/roundscomp.jpg
Which do you think are Automatic Cannon Cartridges? (Yellow = HE)
http://users.bigpond.net.au/feckless/German%20ammo.html


p-)
He219

[James]

I think we should let this forum fade away, like an old soldier...

[martinexsquaddie]

no0bodys called anyone a nazi yet :)

[Trigger]

Martin you're a Nazi! :D

[GazB]

"The L85Ax has no such thing as standard version, both versions with and without SUSAT are in British Army service. "

For quite some time the "Standard" issue SA-80 came with a scope. The vast majority issued were fitted with scopes. When the limitations of scopes were found some units chose iron sight versions, but the standard issue SA-80 had a scope.

"The most important thing is the calibre. If you produces 7,62mm HE round (it isn't impossible), then it be automatically change into cannon round? "

If that 7.62mm round was designed from the outset to use a HE round as a primary round of ammo, then yes, you could argue the case, however you would fail as this would mean the same problem you seem to have with rifle rounds would appear. (ie with your intermediate rifle round definition... this 7.62mm cannon round compares to a .22lr "rifle round" being underpowered compared to what are generaly accepted cannon rounds).

If you are happy with one abberation, another shouldn't matter either.

"If - as you said - cannon round definition is based only on shells"

A cannon is a weapon that fires Shells. A rifle fires bullets. The cannon shell is currently defined as 20mm in calibre, though HMGs can fire shells, as can rifles. If have seen HE shells for .223 rounds, but the charges are so small that I don't think anyone would consider it a cannon.

Thanks for the link to the RT-20. Even using a relatively mild 20 x 110mm round it requires both a muzzle brake and a significant rearward directed blast of propellent to make it safe for shoulder firing. Such cartridge sizes are not ideal for very hv AP rounds. Hense my suggestion that HE would be the most often used round, though obviously for anti tank use a small calibre Sabot round might be used too.


"I think we should let this forum fade away, like an old soldier..."

Why, this is a discussion forum isn't it? That is what we are doing isn't it?

Despite an inability to agree on everything (anything... :-) ) it has not become heated or personal, except when Duke pops his head in... but I am begining to think that is his role here...

[Beowulf]

"That sounds like something Hitler would say".....(foolproof ways to win any argument #54) :D

[Royal]

"The L85Ax has no such thing as standard version, both versions with and without SUSAT are in British Army service. "

For quite some time the "Standard" issue SA-80 came with a scope. The vast majority issued were fitted with scopes. When the limitations of scopes were found some units chose iron sight versions, but the standard issue SA-80 had a scope.

Rubbish. The L85A1 was first issued to the Brigade of Guards, line infantry units, the Parachaute Regiment and the Royal Marines. The SUSAT was (and still is) issued to 'Combat Arms' (with the general exception of the Royal Armoured Corps - although their Recce Troops receive them).

Combat Support and Combat Service Support arms retained the L1A1 and the Stirling for longer, before receiving the L85 with irion sights (a few SUSATs are provided for familiarisation and training only).

Line units keep the iron sight as a backup in the gunner's spare parts wallett (or should). It is also used in the jungle (and as a matter of sub-unit choice) in other areas where an optical sight has a tendancy to steam up.

[GazB]

So what are you saying Royal?
The fighting troops on the front lines use the scopes, except in Jungles, while the REMFs use the Iron sights?

So the weapons being assault rifles have scopes, except in Jungle, and the weapons being SMGs have iron sights. (My brother made a similar switch from Sterlings to Steyrs... he certainly prefers the latter...)

[usa320]

well, seeing as it says favorite weapon, not gun, id have to say the F-15E Strike Eage... Fast, good turning radius. HEAVY load and awesome radar system.

As far as gun, id say the M-4SOPMOD.

[California Joe]

"That sounds like something Hitler would say".....(foolproof ways to win any argument #54) :D

But what would Brian Boitano do?

[a. enders]

New vote....That smartgun from ALIENS,you know the lmg on the harness....Huh....huh-huh.....yeah...... :P

[Beowulf]

What about the Predator triangle laser sight rocket launcher thing. That was bad-ass.
Of course Arnold did end up kicking Predator's ass with a swinging spikey log mkIV mod 0
All Best
-beowulf

[James]

Brown Bess. Hands down.

[martinexsquaddie]

The Baker rifle :)

[Royal]

So what are you saying Royal?
The fighting troops on the front lines use the scopes, except in Jungles, while the REMFs use the Iron sights?

Basically yes. Although I wouldn't use the term remfs for the Combat Support units.


So the weapons being assault rifles have scopes, except in Jungle, and the weapons being SMGs have iron sights. (My brother made a similar switch from Sterlings to Steyrs... he certainly prefers the latter...)

No. The L85A1/A2 is not an SMG. It is an assualt rifle with or without scope. The only SMG currently in service with UK armed forces is the HK MP5 family.

[SABER 2-3]

ANY THAT WITHOUT FAIL PERFORM UP TO THE EXPECTED STANDARD OF USE; EVERYTIME.

[James]

OOH! The Baker Rifle. Nice...

[a. enders]

Brown Bess. Hands down.

rofl

Beowulf...man,you crazy.I like you,but you crazy.

[Seiyuuki]

Goodness!!!!! You people know how long this thread has become!!!!!!!!!!!! woot

[a. enders]

............heh...............

[GazB]

"Basically yes. Although I wouldn't use the term remfs for the Combat Support units. "

Rear Echelon Military Forces actually is the correct description for Combat support units. Though I realise the unofficial stereotype is Rear Echelon Mothr fkers.

"No. The L85A1/A2 is not an SMG. It is an assualt rifle with or without scope. The only SMG currently in service with UK armed forces is the HK MP5 family."

I meant it is used as a SMG. Ie at close range on full auto in self defence. Their primary role is not to shoot the enemy, but to do whatever their job is... like drive a truck or something. (The short sight base of the iron sights wouldn't be that good for long range shooting anyway).

[Royal]

Rear Echelon Military Forces actually is the correct description for Combat support units. Though I realise the unofficial stereotype is Rear Echelon Mothr fkers.

Combat Support units (Sappers especially, but Gunners and even some Loggies to an extent) are not in the rear (ie A1 or A2 echelons) they are generally in F echelon, often at the front of it.



"No. The L85A1/A2 is not an SMG. It is an assualt rifle with or without scope. The only SMG currently in service with UK armed forces is the HK MP5 family."

I meant it is used as a SMG. Ie at close range on full auto in self defence. Their primary role is not to shoot the enemy, but to do whatever their job is... like drive a truck or something. (The short sight base of the iron sights wouldn't be that good for long range shooting anyway).

The iron sights are perfectly accurate to 300m. Are you saying that the FAMAS or the AKM are SMG's too??

Don't talk sh** about stuff you know bugger all about.

[a. enders]

rofl

[martinexsquaddie]

baker rifle it kills french men :)

[GazB]

"The iron sights are perfectly accurate to 300m. Are you saying that the FAMAS or the AKM are SMG's too?? "

The AK in Soviet use was used as a SMG. Soviet troops were trained to fire in bursts rather than single shots and suppressive fire was given priority over individual marksmanship. This accuracy deficit was made up with an SVD and RPK and PKM in each unit.

How often in combat would you see a target at 300m and actually make a kill? If your job is bridge layer how often to you engage the enemy if everything goes to plan? Obviously when things don't go to plan you need a weapon, but how often do you hear about bridging units pushing back enemy unit in combat?
An excellent example would be those American supply troops who got captured by the Iraqi units. Which front line US unit would be so easily taken by such an enemy force?

[Beowulf]

An excellent example would be those American supply troops who got captured by the Iraqi units. Which front line US unit would be so easily taken by such an enemy force?

The gay one.....haha
sorry couldn't resist it....sue me
All best
beowulf

[a. enders]

Got Johnny Cochran on the phone.Says I got defamation. :P

[Dalleer]

http://www.valmet-weapons.com/Rk62.jpg


I'll favor the "pride of the fatherland", the good old RK62.

[WARPIG]

WOW
Long string.. mostly the hand full of tech heads talking history. Great info though.
OICW is a good concept but still pretty far out. Looks like it might be ready for the Objective Force time frame. Even if the whole concept doesn't fly the 20mm round should carry. Air burst grenades are an awsome prospect. As the Land Warrior units begin to surface(FY 2004) I think the tech will lean toward "light and fast." OICW will fit really well. I think FN will take a big chunk of that market from H&K though. Look at what the US is already contracted with. 249 series 240 and even the M2 is by FN now! Have you seen the FN P90 and the FN five seven combo? Great concept!
For now I am still in love with my M4. I can shoot mosquitos of of field mice with that thing.
M9 is a decent pistol for the US grunts. It's a pistol for beginners and the weight is a good thing for novice shooters. (capacity too) Remember, officers are the biggest carriers of pistols and I think novice shooter is what most of them fall into. US shooters should be sporting atleast a .40 S&W side arm or better. I like the H&K line of pistols a lot. It would be a great transition from the Beretta 92 to an H&K USP .40 or .45. The same set up for safety, decocker, mag release.. etc.

[Seoulstriker]

I absolutely love the M14/M1A/M21 family.

of course, the M16 family is next on my list: there is just something so american in that rifle. :P

i can't stand bullpup designs.

[Kampfhamster]

SIG 550 in 6,45 mm Swiss or the SIG 542 in 7,62 mm.

Or the cheap way: AKMS.