Rifles since WW2

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Affentitten]

Well you had the FN FAL / SLR that was in use by many Commonwealth countries up until the 1980s. Not to mention the G3, which you still see a lot in places like Turkey.

Calibres not changing has a lot to do with standardisation and the critical mass of world production. No point in developing a rifle that has some weird calibre that you then cannot market. Gun grogs may correct me, but I think calibre is not so much something you need to vary compared to the actual ammo load/propellant etc.

[Stalins Organ]

Calibre hasn't changed much because there's no reason to change it much - something between 5-8mm will give you everything you want and/or need in a rifle bullet with today's technology.

The reasons for specific calibres (eg why 5.56mm instead of 5.5mm, or 7.62mm instead of 7.5mm) are usually to do with evolution from arcane measurement systems from the 1900's, and in truth bullets are no more difficult to produce in one calibre vs any other.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Affentitten]

Besides the bullpup configuration as an obvious innovation, I think you'll find lots of info on that specialist stuff elsewhere. But as SO has said, if the basic models work well, there isn't much need to evolve them. Especially if you're trying to design a marketable weapon that can be mass produced, used under operaitonal conditions and be supplied from exisiting ammo stockpiles.

If you want to look at something more revolutionary, try the HK G11. Lots of great ideas, but cost per unit and the ammo configuration made it unmarketable.

[Stalins Organ]

Actually bullpup predates WW1 - being first proposed in 1901 for a bolt action rifle according to wiki

all the other stuff is developmental IMO

[howardb]

The m16 had some pretty innovative features like; plastic frame (reduced weight) and straight stock/butt (easier to aim during fire). I'm sure there's more but I'm not an M-16 grog.

The rifle is several hundreds years old so you won't see any revolutions frequently anymore.

There's also tons of extras invented to the rifles although it's not directly related to your topic. Stuff like optical sights, grenade launchers, suppressors and so on.

[Affentitten]

As another absured example of calibre not changing, the Napoleonic 12-pounder had a calibre of about 108mm - strikingingly similar to modern howitzers.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[gunnergoz]

Is there a long and/or 7.62 version of the M16?

Oddly enough, the Armalite AR was the grandpappy of the M16 and IIRC it was originally chambered for 7.62. And yes, you could do your research and you will find 7.62 versions of the M16, though not made by Colt I don't think.

[John Kettler]

Adam,

SVT stands for Self-Loading Rifle, Tokarev, Model 1940 as explained here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVT-40

By contrast, the SVD stands for Sniper Rifle, Dragunov, who, like Tokarev, is the designer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragunov_SVD

While there were some sniper versions of the SVT-40 produced, that wasn't its principal purpose, whereas the SVD WAS designed for sniping and what we would called Designated Marksman work, the scale of issue being one per platoon.

This isn't the only such Russian acronym trap, there being a world of difference between an RPG hand-thrown antitank grenade.

(Moon, included ONLY as info; thought I was on CMSF, not the GDF!)

http://www.ostfront.com/militaria/prods/ROEP-00035.html

and the familiar model RPG-7 and beyond. In the first case, the acronym stands for Hand-held (Ruchnoi) Antitank Grenade, in the second, a good transliteration would be Rocket, Antitank, Grenade Launcher. The Wiki's wrong on this issue, but Isby has it right on page 195 of WEAPON & TACTICS OF THE SOVIET ARMY, Fully Revised Edition, for Reaktivny (rocket) is clearly not the same as Ruchnoi.

I think you somehow missed perhaps THE biggest change in military rifles, which was the intermediate power cartridge, starting with the German 7.92 mm Kurz of StG 44 fame. Later, after the war, Kalalashnikov introduced the now ubiquitous 7.62 x 39 cartridge, first for his AK-47, then Simonov designed a carbine for it, the SKS. By contrast, the Germans went from a full power 7.92 x 57 to the 7.92 x 33 Kurz, and the Russians went from 7.62 x 54 to 7.62 x 39. THE SVD still fires a full power 7.62 x 54 mm cartridge, the same one the DP, SGM, RP-46, PK/PKS all fired. NATO's full power cartridge was 7.62 x 51, and quite a few weapons fired it, but after the U.S. replaced the M-14s with M-16s, this put a lot of pressure on NATO to adopt the radical new cartridge 5.56 x 45. In turn, NATO developed and fielded a much superior, body armor defeating cartridge (and required a new barrel for the faster revolving bullet) called the SS 109, which the U.S. adopted and began producing. The move to smaller calibers in turn influenced the Soviets, who were reading with dismay the reports of what the "black rifle" was producing in the way of wounds to their Vietnamese allies, leading to the overriding of Kalashnikov to produce the 5.45 x 39 AK-74 family of weapons, whose bullets got similar lethality via an ingenious sliding core which upset the bullet on impact with flesh, causing it to tumble. So horrific were the wounds cased, the muj called it the "poison bullet."

That's an overview, and there are exceptions, one of them being the rediscovery of the full power rifle, starting with the muj and their deadly Enfields (and even elephant guns) in Afghanistan and continuing through today with heavily modded M-14s as custom personal weapons and as dedicated Marksman weapons of several types. Antimateriel rifles, such as the Barrett .50, are becoming increasingly common too and not just in the west. Russia has a 12.7mm sniper rifle in service. I think China's got one as well. I think it's fair to say we're seeing the return of the sniper, and everyone's scrambling to adapt. Places like Afghanistan, Somalia, the Balkans, Chechnya and others have shown just how deadly a sniper can be. Nor should we forget the Middle East.

The move to intermediate cartridges came because operational analysis found that typical battles weren't being waged at ranges where full power cartridges were required. Those dated back to the times when armies by and large still wore colorful uniforms and fought in big blocks. The price of that was tellingly shown by the Boers to the British during the Boer War, resulting in the scrapping of time-honored scarlet for the infantry and its replacement with khaki, which blended with the earth. What wasn't learned there was learned in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 and driven home by WW I, where both sides had modern magazine rifles, plus rapid firing artillery and something called machine guns, forcing men to both disperse and dig in. When men massed, they died by the thousands. The result is that in WW II infantry was much harder to see, more dispersed, so harder to kill, and wasn't even engageable, generally, until much closer than when the Enfield and Mauser were first designed. The intermediate cartridge is an excellent mankiller, can be carried in greater quantity than

full power rifle ammo. For example, infantrymen typically carried about 60 rounds total, including in the weapon, for their rifles. Contrast this with Vietnam, where M-16 armed grunts typically carried "at least 300 rounds." Mind, this was back when the M-16 fired in full auto. These days, it's a 3-round burst save for designated specialists, and that info may be out of date. Even so, it neatly illustrates my point. I should also add that these days, troops aren't schlepping just their own weapons and gear, plus the traditional slice of the goodies for the support weapons (MG and mortar ammo), but also body armor, plus NVGs, plus batteries, etc., a load their fathers and grandfathers never had to contend with.

the resultant loss of mobility has been painfully evident since at least Goose Green in the Falklands and has been downright embarrassing in Afghanistan, where overburdened American troops are taunted by lightly equipped Taliban.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[gunnergoz]

Never buy a gun who's bore is too small to crawl up into and hide when things go completely to crap.

[mike_the_wino]

The AR-10/ Stoner. 7.62x51....or were you thinking 7.62x39mm?

[John Kettler]

gunnergoz and mike_the_wino,

Saw one of those many years back at Lincoln Hobbies in Culver City, California. This was before the "assault gun ban" when all sorts of fun stuff was readily available, not to mention high capacity pistols. First encountered this place during my Threat Analyst days and was blown away to find a Soviet tactical radio on the counter and an SVD hanging behind it, the latter a mere $3,000!

Regards,

John Kettler