NS infantry discussion thread. Mark II

[Aqizithiuda]

The case itself is fine. I was under the impression that Ford and I were talking about the neck.

It's suppose to have a wide neck diameter for all dat extra powder

*bullet falls out of case*

[Nua Corda]

It's got the feed tray, buffer system, and general bolt setup, it just has flappers instead of rollers.

Neat. So this is kind of a mix of the MG42 and DP28 internals. You said that was a magazine well on the bottom, correct?

Pretty much. Yep; when you're using it with a belt, there's a sort of false magazine/feed ramp which serves as the mount for the belt box. If, for whatever reason, you want to use the magazines from your squaddie's PSG-1/SVD lovechild, you just press the mag release, let that thing swing forward, and rock in the mag.

[Spreewerke]

Neat. So this is kind of a mix of the MG42 and DP28 internals. You said that was a magazine well on the bottom, correct?

Pretty much. Yep; when you're using it with a belt, there's a sort of false magazine/feed ramp which serves as the mount for the belt box. If, for whatever reason, you want to use the magazines from your squaddie's PSG-1/SVD lovechild, you just press the mag release, let that thing swing forward, and rock in the mag.

You're aware that both of the machineguns you've ripped internals from are bottom-ejecting, right?

[Nua Corda]

Pretty much. Yep; when you're using it with a belt, there's a sort of false magazine/feed ramp which serves as the mount for the belt box. If, for whatever reason, you want to use the magazines from your squaddie's PSG-1/SVD lovechild, you just press the mag release, let that thing swing forward, and rock in the mag.

You're aware that both of the machineguns you've ripped internals from are bottom-ejecting, right?

Yes. However, the MG-42 ejects right about where my side port is in relation to the feed mechanism, so it's a simple matter to modify the extractor/ejector positions to spit brass out the side, and thus allow the pistol grip to be placed farther forward, providing an overall more compact package.

[Spreewerke]

You're aware that both of the machineguns you've ripped internals from are bottom-ejecting, right?

Yes. However, the MG-42 ejects right about where my side port is in relation to the feed mechanism, so it's a simple matter to modify the extractor/ejector positions to spit brass out the side, and thus allow the pistol grip to be placed farther forward, providing an overall more compact package.

Are you handwaving it since the MG42 bolt is constructed in such a way that it disallows that type of rotation of its parts? Besides, it wouldn't be an MG42 bolt if you're using a flapper lock mechanism from the DP-28: a mechanism that will not allow that style of rotation either, correct?

[Nua Corda]

Yes. However, the MG-42 ejects right about where my side port is in relation to the feed mechanism, so it's a simple matter to modify the extractor/ejector positions to spit brass out the side, and thus allow the pistol grip to be placed farther forward, providing an overall more compact package.

Are you handwaving it since the MG42 bolt is constructed in such a way that it disallows that type of rotation of its parts? Besides, it wouldn't be an MG42 bolt if you're using a flapper lock mechanism from the DP-28: a mechanism that will not allow that style of rotation either, correct?

It's not a direct copy of either. And relocating the extractor and ejector is not difficult, when you have more head to work with.

Heck, everything is better when you have more head to work with.

[Spreewerke]

Are you handwaving it since the MG42 bolt is constructed in such a way that it disallows that type of rotation of its parts? Besides, it wouldn't be an MG42 bolt if you're using a flapper lock mechanism from the DP-28: a mechanism that will not allow that style of rotation either, correct?

It's not a direct copy of either. And relocating the extractor and ejector is not difficult, when you have more head to work with.

Heck, everything is better when you have more head to work with.

I had a feeling it wasn't a direct copy of anything considering the DP-28's system and the MG42s can't be combined in any physically possible manner.

[Nua Corda]

It's not a direct copy of either. And relocating the extractor and ejector is not difficult, when you have more head to work with.

Heck, everything is better when you have more head to work with.

I had a feeling it wasn't a direct copy of anything considering the DP-28's system and the MG42s can't be combined in any physically possible manner.

Why all the aggressive nitpicking as of late?

Would you prefer a long description, complete with cycle of functioning and schematics? Because I can do such a thing.

[Spreewerke]

I had a feeling it wasn't a direct copy of anything considering the DP-28's system and the MG42s can't be combined in any physically possible manner.

Why all the aggressive nitpicking as of late?

Would you prefer a long description, complete with cycle of functioning and schematics? Because I can do such a thing.

Yes, please. The DP-28 and MG42 operate in such vastly different ways that there is no way you can combine both operating systems.

[The balkens]

Whoops.....

[Nua Corda]

Why all the aggressive nitpicking as of late?

Would you prefer a long description, complete with cycle of functioning and schematics? Because I can do such a thing.

Yes, please. The DP-28 and MG42 operate in such vastly different ways that there is no way you can combine both operating systems.

Okeydokey.

Locking System Design:

The bolt is composed of two pieces: a bolt body, which contains the fixed firing pin, flapper cam, feed tray operating lug, and dust cover operating lug, and a bolt head, which contains the extractor, ejector, and a pair of flappers. These flappers are acted on by a cam mounted on the bolt body, which extends and retracts them as the bolt body moves forward and back, and engage a pair of recesses on the barrel extension when the bolt assembly is fully forward, locking the weapon.


^This is not to scale by any means, and should only serve to illustrate the general concept.

Cycle of Functioning:

• The fixed firing pin, under pressure from the mainspring, strikes the primer, and the cartridge is fired
• Recoil forces send the bolt body backward, pulling the flappers on the bolt head flush, unlocking the weapon
• With the bolt head now free to leave the barrel extension, the bolt retracts, extracting the cartridge from the chamber
• The bolt continues to recoil, utilizing a cam on the bolt body to pivot the spring-loaded dust cover open, allowing the ejector to kick the spent casing out the ejection port
• The bolt body returns forward, under spring pressure, extracting a cartridge from the feed system
• The cartridge is chambered
• The continued forward motion of the bolt body forces the flappers on the bolt head to extend and engage their recesses on the barrel extension, locking the weapon

Now, I realize that by this point this is neither an MG42 nor a DP-28. If referring to this as being similar too, or inspired by, either of those weapons is some manner of unholy crime against nature, please crucify me now.

[Spreewerke]

So, it's based on them like the FAL is based on the SKS?

[Nua Corda]

So, it's based on them like the FAL is based on the SKS?

Is there any point to this?

[Spreewerke]

So, it's based on them like the FAL is based on the SKS?

Is there any point to this?

You use a flapper lock, but basically borrow nothing notable from any of the three machineguns you referenced. Not too wholly dissimilar from the FAL and SKS both being tilting bolt designs. I'm not sure if, "based on" counts if you're not really using anything in particular from the things you're referencing save for the lock-up.

[Nua Corda]

Is there any point to this?

You use a flapper lock, but basically borrow nothing notable from any of the three machineguns you referenced. Not too wholly dissimilar from the FAL and SKS both being tilting bolt designs. I'm not sure if, "based on" counts if you're not really using anything in particular from the things you're referencing save for the lock-up.

I don't believe I ever said it was based on either. I said it was sort of similar, mostly because I wanted a shorthand manner of describing the general gist without having to get super technical with diagrams and COF and shit.

[Spreewerke]

You use a flapper lock, but basically borrow nothing notable from any of the three machineguns you referenced. Not too wholly dissimilar from the FAL and SKS both being tilting bolt designs. I'm not sure if, "based on" counts if you're not really using anything in particular from the things you're referencing save for the lock-up.

I don't believe I ever said it was based on either. I said it was sort of similar, mostly because I wanted a shorthand manner of describing the general gist without having to get super technical with diagrams and COF and shit.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=275486&p=19089545#p19089545

I was assuming "mutant child" or whatever implied there would be features from them present.

[Nua Corda]

I don't believe I ever said it was based on either. I said it was sort of similar, mostly because I wanted a shorthand manner of describing the general gist without having to get super technical with diagrams and COF and shit.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=275486&p=19089545#p19089545

I was assuming "mutant child" or whatever implied there would be features from them present.

I think you're reading too much into that. I'm also curious why exactly you care? I don't remember superficial nitpicking really being your shtick

[The balkens]

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=275486&p=19089545#p19089545

I was assuming "mutant child" or whatever implied there would be features from them present.

I think you're reading too much into that. I'm also curious why exactly you care? I don't remember superficial nitpicking really being your shtick

So you designed a.....Russian looking weapon with the feed tray of a MG-3 and god knows what other existing platforms.

Nice

Come to think of it, I see some BAR in there too....

[Nua Corda]

I think you're reading too much into that. I'm also curious why exactly you care? I don't remember superficial nitpicking really being your shtick

So you designed a.....Russian looking weapon with the feed tray of a MG-3 and god knows what other existing platforms.

Nice

Come to think of it, I see some BAR in there too....

That handguard is BAR with a touch of Galil ARM in that it holds the bipod when not in use and doubles as bottle opener.

The whole series of guns I'm doing for this guy is sort of a Russian/German Cold War sort of... thing.

[The balkens]

So you designed a.....Russian looking weapon with the feed tray of a MG-3 and god knows what other existing platforms.

Nice

Come to think of it, I see some BAR in there too....

That handguard is BAR with a touch of Galil ARM in that it holds the bipod when not in use and doubles as bottle opener.

The whole series of guns I'm doing for this guy is sort of a Russian/German Cold War sort of... thing.

It looks OK, but.... I think the barrel should be a half inch longer. If I may be a constructive critic....

[Nua Corda]

That handguard is BAR with a touch of Galil ARM in that it holds the bipod when not in use and doubles as bottle opener.

The whole series of guns I'm doing for this guy is sort of a Russian/German Cold War sort of... thing.

It looks OK, but.... I think the barrel should be a half inch longer. If I may be a constructive critic....

Odd, I thought it looked like the barrel should be shorter, and the stock longer…

[Triplebaconation]

It looks off because the forearm is 2-3 times longer than it should be. That's a lot of wood with no purpose at all, and the smudge doesn't help much.

[The balkens]

It looks OK, but.... I think the barrel should be a half inch longer. If I may be a constructive critic....

Odd, I thought it looked like the barrel should be shorter, and the stock longer…

Make both longer, why not?

[Nua Corda]

Odd, I thought it looked like the barrel should be shorter, and the stock longer…

Make both longer, why not?

I think I'll actually leave the barrel where it is, and lengthen the stock a tad. I may also bulk up the bipod a bit, since it looks a bit flimsy as it is.

[The balkens]

Make both longer, why not?

I think I'll actually leave the barrel where it is, and lengthen the stock a tad. I may also bulk up the bipod a bit, since it looks a bit flimsy as it is.

Fine.....
Meanwhile I'm off to reanimate Hugo schmi-the guy who designed the MP-41.