MMW MkV thread. It's been fun.

[The Ottish Empire]

Doesn't it have to be sans stock to be classified as a pistol?
Though CBRPS 'Draco' AKs are classified as pistols and they have butts. I know foregrips and other ability for two-handed use are out for 'pistol' classification, however.

Danton posts on the two main NS-affiliated boards, Linc and NSD.

Mauser C96 says wut?

[Spreewerke]

Spreewerke has slowly convinced me of the advantages the 7.62x39 cartridge confers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_crvGziPn3g

Also, I believe there already exists a bullpup AK similar to what you have. I'm currently using my Wiki- and Google-Fu to double-check myself.

FAKE EDIT: Yep: Type 86S is similar to yours, but yours, honestly, seems to be a bit better than it.

[Purpelia]

During the US Civil War, artillery caused less than 10% of battlefield casualties, although it could be as little as 3% in battles like The Wilderness. It could be as much as 15% in sieges. Cold steel is already a negligible percent. The high point of the rifle was probably the Russo-Japanese War, where rifle fire caused 96% of battlefield casualties. The Boer War was probably similar if not a little higher, but it wasn't the same scale.

The really drastic improvements in artillery don't happen until the Great War.

And here you are completely missing the point. Artillery is all fine and well. But it will NEWER replace the rifle as the weapon of the average infantry man. Simply because he needs something that can kill stuff at 200m or so range and that he can carry in his arms. To claim what you are would be like claiming that armored vehicles (by virtue of killing more stuff than infantry) should replace all infantry.

You are just extrapolating from your data. And failing to look at the big picture.

[Bafuria]

During the US Civil War, artillery caused less than 10% of battlefield casualties, although it could be as little as 3% in battles like The Wilderness. It could be as much as 15% in sieges. Cold steel is already a negligible percent. The high point of the rifle was probably the Russo-Japanese War, where rifle fire caused 96% of battlefield casualties. The Boer War was probably similar if not a little higher, but it wasn't the same scale.

The really drastic improvements in artillery don't happen until the Great War.

I believe you are right, and I think this is one of the main reasons why armies have slowly moved from large BR cartridges like the .30-06 and 8mm Mauser to smaller cartridges like the 5.56 and 5.45. The role of the infantry rifle has changed from killing to suppressing.

[Fischermann]

FAKE EDIT: Yep: Type 86S is similar to yours, but yours, honestly, seems to be a bit better than it.

ACCEPT GRORIOUS CHINESE DOMINATION

No seriously, I love bullpup AK's with Carry handles.

[Bafuria]

Spreewerke has slowly convinced me of the advantages the 7.62x39 cartridge confers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_crvGziPn3g

Also, I believe there already exists a bullpup AK similar to what you have. I'm currently using my Wiki- and Google-Fu to double-check myself.

FAKE EDIT: Yep: Type 86S is similar to yours, but yours, honestly, seems to be a bit better than it.

Oh stop it, you.

it's not a bullpup AK though, The only thing it has in common with the kalashnikov family is the cartridge.

[Indeos]

During the US Civil War, artillery caused less than 10% of battlefield casualties, although it could be as little as 3% in battles like The Wilderness. It could be as much as 15% in sieges. Cold steel is already a negligible percent. The high point of the rifle was probably the Russo-Japanese War, where rifle fire caused 96% of battlefield casualties. The Boer War was probably similar if not a little higher, but it wasn't the same scale.

The really drastic improvements in artillery don't happen until the Great War.

I believe you are right, and I think this is one of the main reasons why armies have slowly moved from large BR cartridges like the .30-06 and 8mm Mauser to smaller cartridges like the 5.56 and 5.45. The role of the infantry rifle has changed from killing to suppressing.

I think modern data is going to be skewed because unlike past data it isn't two equal forces. Any data post-WWII is basically irrelevant as the conditions are drastically different.

[Purpelia]

During the US Civil War, artillery caused less than 10% of battlefield casualties, although it could be as little as 3% in battles like The Wilderness. It could be as much as 15% in sieges. Cold steel is already a negligible percent. The high point of the rifle was probably the Russo-Japanese War, where rifle fire caused 96% of battlefield casualties. The Boer War was probably similar if not a little higher, but it wasn't the same scale.

The really drastic improvements in artillery don't happen until the Great War.

I believe you are right, and I think this is one of the main reasons why armies have slowly moved from large BR cartridges like the .30-06 and 8mm Mauser to smaller cartridges like the 5.56 and 5.45. The role of the infantry rifle has changed from killing to suppressing.

Actually, the reason why they switched down was because the role of the infantry rifle has changed from long range sniping to fighting in tight urban areas and trenches where you want something closer to a submachine gun than to a WW1 rifle. As in, something that you can carry a lot of. Something you can fire off rapidly in full auto bursts without breaking your shoulders. And something that will be short and light enough to be useful in close quarters. Modern assault rifles are just the logical conclusion of the developments that took place as early as WW1 with German storm troopers being issued SMG's only. Fallowing through the sturmgewer 44 and ending with modern weapons. The end goal of it all being to figure out a weapon and ammo combination that will give your troops respectable but not overpowered medium-long range firepower while giving you the benefit of a light and compact weapon with loads of ammo.

As for him. His numbers are right. But he is reading them wrong.

[Fischermann]

For those who like it the old way:

[Alimeria II]

Right about here, is where I wish I could post more than ten face-palm smilies.

He's right, you know.

I don't care whether he is telling facts or not, he is annoying me a lot.

Artillery is Bulky and isn't holdable with a Hand. A good gun is Light, Ergonomic, Accurate, and doesn't kill innocents quite as often. And Guns are much more usable with modern Warfare. It is very hard to use a Cannon in an Urban Setting, but a Gun is very usable. Same with Thick Jungle Bush (Yes, I know we haven't fought in Jungles for Decades, but still.)

[Purpelia]

I wonder if anyone ever found a cross section image of the TKB-022. All I can find are hand made drawings from other folks trying to figure it out like I am. And none of them look actually sane or plausible. Let alone detailed.

[Fischermann]

I wonder if anyone ever found a cross section image of the TKB-022. All I can find are hand made drawings from other folks trying to figure it out like I am. And none of them look actually sane or plausible. Let alone detailed.

There was an explanation on how it works around here somewhere, IIRC.

IIRC Maxim Popenker's explanation is the true one.

[Spreewerke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_crvGziPn3g

Also, I believe there already exists a bullpup AK similar to what you have. I'm currently using my Wiki- and Google-Fu to double-check myself.

FAKE EDIT: Yep: Type 86S is similar to yours, but yours, honestly, seems to be a bit better than it.

Oh stop it, you.

it's not a bullpup AK though, The only thing it has in common with the kalashnikov family is the cartridge.

Wait, you're using a 7.62x39mm that's neither an AK nor an SKS? I am disappoint.


EDIT TO ADD: Also, that's not the old way. This is.

[Galla-]

I wonder if anyone ever found a cross section image of the TKB-022. All I can find are hand made drawings from other folks trying to figure it out like I am. And none of them look actually sane or plausible. Let alone detailed.

:purpelia:

[Alimeria II]

For those who like it the old way:

(Image)

EDIT TO ADD: Also, that's not the old way. This is.

Both of you are wrong, this is the (unergonomic) Old Way!

[Purpelia]

I wonder if anyone ever found a cross section image of the TKB-022. All I can find are hand made drawings from other folks trying to figure it out like I am. And none of them look actually sane or plausible. Let alone detailed.

:purpelia:

I know of that thread. And hell, in it I even tried to draw up some way for the system to work based on the descriptions. But those images too I would qualify squarely under the neither sane nor right category. As in, 60-70% guess work off an explanation that I newer truly understood even now a year later. I have been meaning to touch those images up. But I newer could figure much of it out. Like for example:

Now important part to remember is that the part of the operating rod that moves the round into the chamber stays in the chamber, and so the chamber is technically not sealed. The block just holds the round in place while firing. The rod is in two parts, the piston/main part, and the pusher part for ramming a new cartridge in, which is attached to, but given some degree of movement from, the main rod. This allows the main rod to move slightly to unlock the block.

[Dtn (Ancient)]

During the US Civil War, artillery caused less than 10% of battlefield casualties, although it could be as little as 3% in battles like The Wilderness. It could be as much as 15% in sieges. Cold steel is already a negligible percent. The high point of the rifle was probably the Russo-Japanese War, where rifle fire caused 96% of battlefield casualties. The Boer War was probably similar if not a little higher, but it wasn't the same scale.

The really drastic improvements in artillery don't happen until the Great War.

And here you are completely missing the point. Artillery is all fine and well. But it will NEWER replace the rifle as the weapon of the average infantry man. Simply because he needs something that can kill stuff at 200m or so range and that he can carry in his arms. To claim what you are would be like claiming that armored vehicles (by virtue of killing more stuff than infantry) should replace all infantry.

You are just extrapolating from your data. And failing to look at the big picture.

I never said crew-served artillery would replace the infantry rifle. I said small guided weapons would.

NEVER is really long time, presumably even longer when it's capitalized like that. Weapons become obsolete during shifts in technological epochs. The Bronze Age obsoleted the rock, the Enlightenment obsoleted the spear, the Industrial Revolution obsoleted the musket. These are all generalizations, but it's highly unlikely that the rifle will survive the Information Age as the infantry weapon of decision.

It probably won't completely disappear. People still throw rocks, after all.

The sociopolitical effects of this are far more interesting to me, so if you won't your future soldiers to use .338 or whatever I won't press the issue further. I might think it's like someone faced with a sword scrambling frantically for a bigger rock, but Master Chief uses some kind of 9mm+ rifle, so whatever.

[The Republic of Lanos]

During the US Civil War, artillery caused less than 10% of battlefield casualties, although it could be as little as 3% in battles like The Wilderness. It could be as much as 15% in sieges. Cold steel is already a negligible percent. The high point of the rifle was probably the Russo-Japanese War, where rifle fire caused 96% of battlefield casualties. The Boer War was probably similar if not a little higher, but it wasn't the same scale.

The really drastic improvements in artillery don't happen until the Great War.

Sure you can have artillery pound the shit out of an enemy-held town but you still have to send infantry in to finish the job.

[New Corda]

And here you are completely missing the point. Artillery is all fine and well. But it will NEWER replace the rifle as the weapon of the average infantry man. Simply because he needs something that can kill stuff at 200m or so range and that he can carry in his arms. To claim what you are would be like claiming that armored vehicles (by virtue of killing more stuff than infantry) should replace all infantry.

You are just extrapolating from your data. And failing to look at the big picture.

I never said crew-served artillery would replace the infantry rifle. I said small guided weapons would.

NEVER is really long time, presumably even longer when it's capitalized like that. Weapons become obsolete during shifts in technological epochs. The Bronze Age obsoleted the rock, the Enlightenment obsoleted the spear, the Industrial Revolution obsoleted the musket. These are all generalizations, but it's highly unlikely that the rifle will survive the Information Age as the infantry weapon of decision.

It probably won't completely disappear. People still throw rocks, after all.

The sociopolitical effects of this are far more interesting to me, so if you won't your future soldiers to use .338 or whatever I won't press the issue further. I might think it's like someone faced with a sword scrambling frantically for a bigger rock, but Master Chief uses some kind of 9mm+ rifle, so whatever.

7.62, actually... AND IT STILL HAS BRASS...

[Indeos]

And here you are completely missing the point. Artillery is all fine and well. But it will NEWER replace the rifle as the weapon of the average infantry man. Simply because he needs something that can kill stuff at 200m or so range and that he can carry in his arms. To claim what you are would be like claiming that armored vehicles (by virtue of killing more stuff than infantry) should replace all infantry.

You are just extrapolating from your data. And failing to look at the big picture.

I never said crew-served artillery would replace the infantry rifle. I said small guided weapons would.

NEVER is really long time, presumably even longer when it's capitalized like that. Weapons become obsolete during shifts in technological epochs. The Bronze Age obsoleted the rock, the Enlightenment obsoleted the spear, the Industrial Revolution obsoleted the musket. These are all generalizations, but it's highly unlikely that the rifle will survive the Information Age as the infantry weapon of decision.

It probably won't completely disappear. People still throw rocks, after all.

The sociopolitical effects of this are far more interesting to me, so if you won't your future soldiers to use .338 or whatever I won't press the issue further. I might think it's like someone faced with a sword scrambling frantically for a bigger rock, but Master Chief uses some kind of 9mm+ rifle, so whatever.

The Halo humans also had no military development for like hundreds of years.

[Sevvania]

I never said crew-served artillery would replace the infantry rifle. I said small guided weapons would.

NEVER is really long time, presumably even longer when it's capitalized like that. Weapons become obsolete during shifts in technological epochs. The Bronze Age obsoleted the rock, the Enlightenment obsoleted the spear, the Industrial Revolution obsoleted the musket. These are all generalizations, but it's highly unlikely that the rifle will survive the Information Age as the infantry weapon of decision.

It probably won't completely disappear. People still throw rocks, after all.

The sociopolitical effects of this are far more interesting to me, so if you won't your future soldiers to use .338 or whatever I won't press the issue further. I might think it's like someone faced with a sword scrambling frantically for a bigger rock, but Master Chief uses some kind of 9mm+ rifle, so whatever.

7.62, actually... AND IT STILL HAS BRASS...

Halo is kinda iffy in terms of military tech, though. It's still a pretty great game (I actually have Combat Evolved minimized, at the moment), of course, but I don't think I'd use it as an accurate representation of, "What will warfare be like in five hundred years?"

[Yes Im Biop]

I never said crew-served artillery would replace the infantry rifle. I said small guided weapons would.

NEVER is really long time, presumably even longer when it's capitalized like that. Weapons become obsolete during shifts in technological epochs. The Bronze Age obsoleted the rock, the Enlightenment obsoleted the spear, the Industrial Revolution obsoleted the musket. These are all generalizations, but it's highly unlikely that the rifle will survive the Information Age as the infantry weapon of decision.

500+ to be exact. Thats alkaline to Us still using Wheel lock guns.
It probably won't completely disappear. People still throw rocks, after all.

The sociopolitical effects of this are far more interesting to me, so if you won't your future soldiers to use .338 or whatever I won't press the issue further. I might think it's like someone faced with a sword scrambling frantically for a bigger rock, but Master Chief uses some kind of 9mm+ rifle, so whatever.

The Halo humans also had no military development for like hundreds of years.

[New Corda]

7.62, actually... AND IT STILL HAS BRASS...

Halo is kinda iffy in terms of military tech, though. It's still a pretty great game (I actually have Combat Evolved minimized, at the moment), of course, but I don't think I'd use it as an accurate representation of, "What will warfare be like in five hundred years?"

Exactly why I'm complaining. Although I DO like the games...

Now, as to Mass Effect: handheld railguns haz infinty ammoz because FUTURE!

[Bafuria]

Oh stop it, you.

it's not a bullpup AK though, The only thing it has in common with the kalashnikov family is the cartridge.

Wait, you're using a 7.62x39mm that's neither an AK nor an SKS? I am disappoint.


EDIT TO ADD: Also, that's not the old way. This is.

Actually, it is a semi-automatic weapon using a short-stroke piston mechanism with a tilting bolt, so internally it is sort of a bullpup SKS.

@TKB: Eeeeeeeewww. >:-þ

[Dtn (Ancient)]

PDWs and DMRs are the first two things I think of. Also, the images you posted (though I hate the FN2000) show how the firearm has advanced. The BAR is 20 rounds of pure .30-06 masculinity that kicks quite a bit. It's also one heavy rifle. The FN200, on the other hand, is just as accurate, not over-powered (since typical engagements are 300m or less, you know, and stuff), more compact/maneuverable, and you can carry a lot more ammunition on you.

I will say that you are, to an extent, correct that firearm design hasn't advanced a whole lot in the last century. However, firearms have been insanely improved upon in the past century to make them into far more capable combat weapons.

I could have posted a true World War One-era assault rifle but I chose the BAR for familiarity.

I can really only think of one really obscure niche type of military firearm that wasn't around before 1919 in one form or another. Even specialized port-firing weapons were invented in World War I.