The NS Infantry Discussion Thread MkII*

[Purpelia]

To be perfectly honest I don't see why he should not. I have been contemplating a bp variant of my own rifle. But that's a strait-pull so the conversion would be trivial to make. And I mean trivial. I'd literally just have to get a new set of furniture. Don't know how hard it would be for him.

Bulpup bolt guns that arent purpose built (read: Conversions) are fucking retarded. 99% of bulup bolt guns are hilariously awkward and really inefficient. The notwithstanding are mostly sniper rifles purpose built (such as the Barrett M95 and Desert Tactical Recon or whatever)

The irony is that whilst this is true the pump action mechanism on my bolt action rifle would actually make for a rather decent way of working the mechanism if it was ever converted.


Speaking of that, I have a few questions for you all regarding rifle barrels.
Question 1:
Take your average rifle design. The barrel is encased on all sides within the furniture which clamps down on it and keeps it in place. Now obviously, in order for the barrel to go through the furniture it has to have a hole drilled out inside of it. So let's say I take this hole and widen it so that it's say 1-2mm wider than it needs to be. In that case, the barrel would still be completely encased by the furniture but wold not actually touch it. This should allow the barrel to flex freely thus giving me a free floating barrel.

Is this a correct interpretation?

Question 2:
Assuming the answer to #1 is correct the one issue I can see is that dirt or water could get into the system from the front where the muzzle exits the furniture since there would be a gap present there. Would this be a serious problem worth addressing?
And if so, would something like a rubber seal address it in such a way that it both solves the issue and does not compromise the free floatiness?
If not, what would be a good solution?

[Imperializt Russia]

Why would the barrel be completely encased in the first place?
That's going to be bad for heat retention.

[Spreewerke]

I thought the Winchester company made them? Designed by John browning?

Or are we talking about the same rifle?

When Sam Colt got the patent for the revolver, he litigated it aggressively. In the process, he put young Dan Wesson out of business, since the revolver Wesson designed was infringing on the patent. Wesson teamed up with Horace Smith to create the Volcanic Repeating Arms Company, to make pistols and rifles based on a design for a repeating rifle and rocket ball ammunition developed by Walter Hunt (who is better known for inventing the safety pin). Smith and Wesson, together with a fellow named B Tyler Henry, perfected the design, and sold it as the Volcanic Repeater. Eventually, since rocket ball ammunition sucks ass, B Tyler Henry designed a rimfire .44 cartridge, and redesigned the rifle to fire it, creating the Henry Rifle. The Volcanic Arms company was created with startup money from a number of investors, including one Oliver Winchester, who eventually bought out the company and renamed it the New Haven Arms Company. Later, he changed the name to Winchester Repeating Arms, and the rest is history.

Eventually, after Smith and Wesson left to create a revolver company which would turn the tables on Colt with a patent for a bored-through cylinder, Winchester would team up with John Browning to produce a series of new designs intended to handle more powerful cartridges, but without Horace Smith and Daniel Wesson, it is very likely that Winchester Arms never would have existed in the first place.

The source I found stated that Mr. Winchester put money into "S&W" (with others) because S&W/Volcanic was failing financially. Saw the opportunity there, and thus invested his money. I would venture to guess Winchester Arms would have existed one way or another if Oliver was set on saving a firearms manufacturer like he did, but S&W would not had Winchester not learned of their troubles and invested in them to begin with, more or less bailing them out. Same source also says Henry didn't show up until Winchester had hired him, so I'm thinking Winchester could have had Henry work on whatever company he happened to invest in on a given day if it hadn't have been Volcanic Arms. From what else I can find, S&W started up when two employees (guess who) broke away from Volcanic Arms, "designed" (aka: used someone else's patent with their permission and gave them $0.25 per revolver sold) the bored-through revolver (Model 1) you mentioned, and had their new, metallic cartridge. Winchester had apparently created New Haven Arms in 1857 whereas the S&W Model 1 came out in 1856, so the actual S&W Co. was apparently not a part of the Winchester-owned establishment at all.

Don't get me wrong: S&W makes some dandy products, but from what I could find in my brief search, Winchester is the reason S&W still exists today and not quite the other way around beyond the fact it was Volcanic Arms that Oliver Winchester decided to buy out opposed to any other given manufacturer at the time.

Question 2:
Assuming the answer to #1 is correct the one issue I can see is that dirt or water could get into the system from the front where the muzzle exits the furniture since there would be a gap present there. Would this be a serious problem worth addressing?
And if so, would something like a rubber seal address it in such a way that it both solves the issue and does not compromise the free floatiness?
If not, what would be a good solution?

I believe SOP at the time full-length stocks were common was to basically make sure the forward-most barrel band was tight enough that most flexing near the muzzle was eliminated.

[Purpelia]

Why would the barrel be completely encased in the first place?
That's going to be bad for heat retention.

Because I am making a sniper conversion of my semi-auto rifle which used to be a bolt action rifle that's supposed to take place in 1985. So the army wants to maintain the overall look and feel of the weapon in order to retain familiarity with users.


I am actually going to draw out all the variants of the Rifle Felix 1890 including but not limited to:
Submodel K cavalry carbine (done)
Submodel 19 semi-auto rifle (done)
Submodel 19/23 semi-auto rifle (almost done)
MSP 1923 submachine gun
Submodel 19/23/50 select fire battle rifle
Submodel 19/23/50/85 sniper rifle
Submodel 19/23/50/2000 modern advanced sniper rifle

I believe SOP at the time full-length stocks were common was to basically make sure the forward-most barrel band was tight enough that most flexing near the muzzle was eliminated.

But would that not be counterproductive in terms of accuracy?

[Imperializt Russia]

Why would the barrel be completely encased in the first place?
That's going to be bad for heat retention.

Because I am making a sniper conversion of my semi-auto rifle which used to be a bolt action rifle that's supposed to take place in 1985. So the army wants to maintain the overall look and feel of the weapon in order to retain familiarity with users.


I am actually going to draw out all the variants of the Rifle Felix 1890 including but not limited to:
Submodel K cavalry carbine (done)
Submodel 19 semi-auto rifle (done)
Submodel 19/23 semi-auto rifle (almost done)
MSP 1923 submachine gun
Submodel 19/23/50 select fire battle rifle
Submodel 19/23/50/85 sniper rifle
Submodel 19/23/50/2000 modern advanced sniper rifle

I believe SOP at the time full-length stocks were common was to basically make sure the forward-most barrel band was tight enough that most flexing near the muzzle was eliminated.

But would that not be counterproductive in terms of accuracy?

Have you ever considered an L42 type of modification?

[Purpelia]

Have you ever considered an L42 type of modification?
(Image)

I have. But I personally find that cutting off the stock like that looks horribly ugly.
Plus, if I did that I could not make a later (Submodel 2000) version with 4 sided powered rails all over the front furniture.

So doing that is 100% off the table.
Hence my original question.

[Sevvania]

Submodel K cavalry carbine (done)
Submodel 19 semi-auto rifle (done)
Submodel 19/23 semi-auto rifle (almost done)
Submodel 19/23/50 select fire battle rifle
Submodel 19/23/50/85 sniper rifle
Submodel 19/23/50/2000 modern advanced sniper rifle

If all the submodels are modifications to previous submodels, I think I'd just take the year of manufacture/modification out to two places.
ex: Submodel 23/50, instead of Submodel 19/23/50

Or maybe just refer to them by the last date they were modified.
ex: Submodel 2000, instead of Submodel 19/23/50/2000

[Purpelia]

Submodel K cavalry carbine (done)
Submodel 19 semi-auto rifle (done)
Submodel 19/23 semi-auto rifle (almost done)
Submodel 19/23/50 select fire battle rifle
Submodel 19/23/50/85 sniper rifle
Submodel 19/23/50/2000 modern advanced sniper rifle

If all the submodels are modifications to previous submodels, I think I'd just take the year of manufacture/modification out to two places.
ex: Submodel 23/50, instead of Submodel 19/23/50

Or maybe just refer to them by the last date they were modified.
ex: Submodel 2000, instead of Submodel 19/23/50/2000

That would not really work due to how Purpelian classification works. The last of the two digit numbers does indicate when the modification was made, but the others indicate what was modified in the first place. The fact that they happen to coincide in the designs in question is just coincidence. So you can have [equipment name] model A Submodel B/C/D and Submodel B/D, C/D and B/C all existing at the same time meaning different things.

For example:
Submodel 19/23/50 = Original modified in 1919 with the modifications carrying over for further modifications in 1923 and than again in 1950. Where as Submodel 19/50 would indicate that the modifications were done to the original with the 1919 modifications but without the 1923 ones. Maybe something was wrong with the 1923 design and it was skipped over.

Rifle Felix Model 1890 Sumodel 2000 for example would mean that someone took the original long rifle as was produced in 1890 and modified it directly skipping over all modernizations in between.

[Premislyd]

Submodel K cavalry carbine (done)
Submodel 19 semi-auto rifle (done)
Submodel 19/23 semi-auto rifle (almost done)
Submodel 19/23/50 select fire battle rifle
Submodel 19/23/50/85 sniper rifle
Submodel 19/23/50/2000 modern advanced sniper rifle

If all the submodels are modifications to previous submodels, I think I'd just take the year of manufacture/modification out to two places.
ex: Submodel 23/50, instead of Submodel 19/23/50

Or maybe just refer to them by the last date they were modified.
ex: Submodel 2000, instead of Submodel 19/23/50/2000

That makes sense and is too simple.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

If all the submodels are modifications to previous submodels, I think I'd just take the year of manufacture/modification out to two places.
ex: Submodel 23/50, instead of Submodel 19/23/50

Or maybe just refer to them by the last date they were modified.
ex: Submodel 2000, instead of Submodel 19/23/50/2000

That would not really work due to how Purpelian classification works. The last of the two digit numbers does indicate when the modification was made, but the others indicate what was modified in the first place. The fact that they happen to coincide in the designs in question is just coincidence. So you can have [equipment name] model A Submodel B/C/D and Submodel B/D, C/D and B/C all existing at the same time meaning different things.

For example:
Submodel 19/23/50 = Original modified in 1919 with the modifications carrying over for further modifications in 1923 and than again in 1950. Where as Submodel 19/50 would indicate that the modifications were done to the original with the 1919 modifications but without the 1923 ones. Maybe something was wrong with the 1923 design and it was skipped over.

Rifle Felix Model 1890 Sumodel 2000 for example would mean that someone took the original long rifle as was produced in 1890 and modified it directly skipping over all modernizations in between.

So use a simpler naming scheme.

[Puzikas]

That would not really work due to how Purpelian classification works. The last of the two digit numbers does indicate when the modification was made, but the others indicate what was modified in the first place. The fact that they happen to coincide in the designs in question is just coincidence. So you can have [equipment name] model A Submodel B/C/D and Submodel B/D, C/D and B/C all existing at the same time meaning different things.

For example:
Submodel 19/23/50 = Original modified in 1919 with the modifications carrying over for further modifications in 1923 and than again in 1950. Where as Submodel 19/50 would indicate that the modifications were done to the original with the 1919 modifications but without the 1923 ones. Maybe something was wrong with the 1923 design and it was skipped over.

Rifle Felix Model 1890 Sumodel 2000 for example would mean that someone took the original long rifle as was produced in 1890 and modified it directly skipping over all modernizations in between.

So use a simpler naming scheme.

Its purp.

He is the opposite of KISS. He is KICK.

[Purpelia]

It's not like anyone aside from ordnance is ever going to be using these designations anyway. At least not in full. The troops are going to have their own nicknames and each of the service branches is going to come up with their own designations if and when they adopt them.

This designation is roughly equivalent to "United States Rifle, 7.62 mm, M14" or "Kalashnikov automatic rifle model 1974". No one actually calls it that, but that's the name written on the box you get when you are issued one.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

It's not like anyone aside from ordnance is ever going to be using these designations anyway. At least not in full. The troops are going to have their own nicknames and each of the service branches is going to come up with their own designations if and when they adopt them.

This designation is roughly equivalent to "United States Rifle, 7.62 mm, M14" or "Kalashnikov automatic rifle model 1974". No one actually calls it that, but that's the name written on the box you get when you are issued one.

No one calls it United States Rifle 197x/197x/198x/199x 5.56 mm M16 either. Not even the United States.

[Purpelia]

It's not like anyone aside from ordnance is ever going to be using these designations anyway. At least not in full. The troops are going to have their own nicknames and each of the service branches is going to come up with their own designations if and when they adopt them.

This designation is roughly equivalent to "United States Rifle, 7.62 mm, M14" or "Kalashnikov automatic rifle model 1974". No one actually calls it that, but that's the name written on the box you get when you are issued one.

No one calls it United States Rifle 197x/197x/198x/199x 5.56 mm M16 either. Not even the United States.

As said, it's just the official ordnance designation. The only place a common man is going to find out about it is Wikipedia or maybe a museum.

[Bezombia]

Are there even bullpup rifles that have been de-bullpup'd? I want to look, but I don't know what to search for.

The PMG group on Flickr has a few examples, although not all seem to be mechanically feasible.

but...a bullpup L85 would just be an AR-18...

[Premislyd]

The PMG group on Flickr has a few examples, although not all seem to be mechanically feasible.

but...a bullpup L85 would just be an AR-18...

Pretty sure a bullpup L85 is a L85.

[Purpelia]

I actually like it better this way. Well aside from the handguard which looks like it has a tumor.

[Bezombia]

but...a bullpup L85 would just be an AR-18...

Pretty sure a bullpup L85 is a L85.

i meant a non-bullpup L85

[Kouralia]

but...a bullpup L85 would just be an AR-18...

Pretty sure a bullpup L85 is a L85.

helpful plem strikes again!



righting wrongs and correcting benos wherever they may be found

[Puzikas]

It's not like anyone aside from ordnance is ever going to be using these designations anyway. At least not in full. The troops are going to have their own nicknames and each of the service branches is going to come up with their own designations if and when they adopt them.

This designation is roughly equivalent to "United States Rifle, 7.62 mm, M14" or "Kalashnikov automatic rifle model 1974". No one actually calls it that, but that's the name written on the box you get when you are issued one.

Cant speak for the US but when your issued an AK its not written out "Калашникова Автомат винтовка 1974 года Модернизированный". Its either "АК-74М" or under a box labeled "винтовка Модель" and filled in"74M".

At least, on armory forms. The only time you would see "Калашникова Автоматическая винтовка 1974 года Модернизированный" is on a GRAU form when looking to see what "6P26" was, in a manual only once, or in a museum on a display.

If it was the case for Russia how you do it, the rifle would be designated something like "тактико-технические требования 3131-45 Калашникова Автомат винтовка 1947 года типа 4А/B, Тип Модификация, Калашникова Автомат винтовка 1974 года, Модернизированный; taktiko-tekhnicheskiye trebovaniya 3131-45 Kalashnikova Avtomaticheskaya vintovka 1947 goda tipa 4A/B, Tip Modifikatsiya , Kalashnikova Avtomaticheskaya vintovka 1974 goda , Modernizirovannyy, (ENG: tactical and technical requirement 3131-45, Kalashnikov Automatic Rifle 1947, Type 4A /B, Modification Type: Kalashnikov automatic rifle in 1974, Modernized)

Thats a broken as fuck naming system.

[Premislyd]

so many non-english letters

go away

[Puzikas]

so many non-english letters

go away

иф уфц gф ашач

[Purpelia]

Thats a broken as fuck naming system.

Now imagine how much more broken it could get if Russia was like Purpelia, a functional feudal monarchy where inbred nobles do get a say in designating things.

[Gallia-]

Thats a broken as fuck naming system.

Now imagine how much more broken it could get if Russia was like Purpelia, a functional feudal monarchy where inbred nobles do get a say in designating things.

Replace noble with oligarch.

You're already there.

[Bezombia]

so many non-english letters

go away

˙ǝlᴉʇsoɥ os ǝq oʇ pǝǝu ou s,ǝɹǝɥ┴