Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 7:44 am
Totally not a tag.
Totally not a tag.
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Infantry Discussion Thread 6: True Korea Edition
Page 20 of 501
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 7:44 amTotally not a tag.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:00 amPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:05 amSince there was a big argument about my fire selector system I present here a detailed design view of it in action.
SWF Link
The mechanism consists of the following components:
1. Two fire selector handles for ambidextrous access.
2. Guide Rod
3. Sear and sear spring which whilst mounted on the guide rod are not fixed to it but free to rotate around it.
4. A hex screw to secure the sear in place
5. A coil spring that makes the sear bounce back each time the bolt stops pushing it forward.
As far as the mechanism goes it's simple. The guide rod has a thread on it so that when rotated it moves sideways as well. Over rotation (rotating so far to undo the screw) is prevented by the presence of the second fire selector handle which physically stops it moving any further. When the fire selector is in the vertical position the sear is in line with the bolt and will be hit thus making the weapon fire. When it is in the horizontal position it is not. Simple as that.
Also, note 50's style knob.
Ideas? Complaints? Objections? Input?
SWF Link
The mechanism consists of the following components:
1. Two fire selector handles for ambidextrous access.
2. Guide Rod
3. Sear and sear spring which whilst mounted on the guide rod are not fixed to it but free to rotate around it.
4. A hex screw to secure the sear in place
5. A coil spring that makes the sear bounce back each time the bolt stops pushing it forward.
As far as the mechanism goes it's simple. The guide rod has a thread on it so that when rotated it moves sideways as well. Over rotation (rotating so far to undo the screw) is prevented by the presence of the second fire selector handle which physically stops it moving any further. When the fire selector is in the vertical position the sear is in line with the bolt and will be hit thus making the weapon fire. When it is in the horizontal position it is not. Simple as that.
Also, note 50's style knob.
Ideas? Complaints? Objections? Input?
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:06 amPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:18 amWhile reading about the different bolt action systems, the Enfield, Mauser and Mosin system seem to have differences in the design, but in "performance" they seem to be all pretty close.
Now does any of the three has remarkable advantages over others or is it "choose whatever you want because they're more or less equal"?
Now does any of the three has remarkable advantages over others or is it "choose whatever you want because they're more or less equal"?
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:22 amLaywenrania wrote:While reading about the different bolt action systems, the Enfield, Mauser and Mosin system seem to have differences in the design, but in "performance" they seem to be all pretty close.
Now does any of the three has remarkable advantages over others or is it "choose whatever you want because they're more or less equal"?
Lee action, if done right, is one of the smoothest and fastest ones, which I believe is due to its cock on close and the place of the TG in relation to the bolt handle. Mauser's real advantage is that it's a controlled feed action, as opposed to a push feed. Mosin is just Russian, and its real advantage that I know/knew of is simply that it's shiny metal.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:22 amLaywenrania wrote:While reading about the different bolt action systems, the Enfield, Mauser and Mosin system seem to have differences in the design, but in "performance" they seem to be all pretty close.
Now does any of the three has remarkable advantages over others or is it "choose whatever you want because they're more or less equal"?
The later. Although if you want my advice I am going to say neither. The best system is the strait-pull used by the Schmidt-Rubin series of rifles.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:25 amPurpelia wrote:Laywenrania wrote:While reading about the different bolt action systems, the Enfield, Mauser and Mosin system seem to have differences in the design, but in "performance" they seem to be all pretty close.
Now does any of the three has remarkable advantages over others or is it "choose whatever you want because they're more or less equal"?
The later. Although if you want my advice I am going to say neither. The best system is the strait-pull used by the Schmidt-Rubin series of rifles.
The best system is a K31 with a gas cylinder jerryrigged onto it, bruh.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:27 amPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:29 amPurpelia wrote:Yukonastan wrote:
The best system is a K31 with a gas cylinder jerryrigged onto it, bruh.
Yea, I know.
you misunderstand
i mean a k31
with a gas cylinder ducktaped onto it
so that you have five shots automatic
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:30 amWould a straigth pull system have any major drawbacks (esp. regarding reliability in muddy/swampy conditions)?
Aka why aren't they more widespread?
Aka why aren't they more widespread?
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:34 amLaywenrania wrote:Would a straigth pull system have any major drawbacks (esp. regarding reliability in muddy/swampy conditions)?
If done well it would not. If done badly it would. But that applies to all the other systems as well. It's no better or worse in that regard.
Aka why aren't they more widespread?
Because different designers designed their rifles differently and countries bought what was offered to them at the time. And since what they had was quite good enough they just stuck with it. Buying foreign certainly was not worth the added 1% or something in rate of fire.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:35 amLaywenrania wrote:Would a straigth pull system have any major drawbacks (esp. regarding reliability in muddy/swampy conditions)?
Aka why aren't they more widespread?
They were kinda hit and miss when the happened IRL, I don't know about the Mannlicher and how it fared during the Great War, but the Canadians used a straight pull called the Ross Rifle that had a bad habit of shooting the bolt back at you if you didn't re-assemble it just perfectly following a good cleaning.
As you can imagine, a rifle with that sort of tolerance for dirt and grime was not very popular when all you did was sit around in miles long stretches of dirt and grime.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:36 amGawdzendia wrote:Laywenrania wrote:Would a straigth pull system have any major drawbacks (esp. regarding reliability in muddy/swampy conditions)?
Aka why aren't they more widespread?
They were kinda hit and miss when the happened IRL, I don't know about the Mannlicher and how it fared during the Great War, but the Canadians used a straight pull called the Ross Rifle that had a bad habit of shooting the bolt back at you if you didn't re-assemble it just perfectly following a good cleaning.
As you can imagine, a rifle with that sort of tolerance for dirt and grime was not very popular when all you did was sit in miles long stretches of dirt and grime.
That's not a feature of strait pulls but of the Ross which was frankly badly designed. Here is a link that explains the details: http://www.forgottenweapons.com/myth-an ... oss-mkiii/
Basically the bolt was designed in a way which allowed it to be reassembled wrong. And if you did that the bolt would not rotate properly and thus would not lock. And you'd get an out of battery shot. But this was entirely a feature of bad bolt design and would have gone the same way even if the rifle had used a standard action.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:39 amPurpelia wrote:Gawdzendia wrote:
They were kinda hit and miss when the happened IRL, I don't know about the Mannlicher and how it fared during the Great War, but the Canadians used a straight pull called the Ross Rifle that had a bad habit of shooting the bolt back at you if you didn't re-assemble it just perfectly following a good cleaning.
As you can imagine, a rifle with that sort of tolerance for dirt and grime was not very popular when all you did was sit in miles long stretches of dirt and grime.
That's not a feature of strait pulls but of the Ross which was frankly badly designed. Here is a link that explains the details: http://www.forgottenweapons.com/myth-an ... oss-mkiii/
Basically the bolt was designed in a way which allowed it to be reassembled wrong. And if you did that the bolt would not rotate properly and thus would not lock. And you'd get an out of battery shot.
....
Laywenrania wrote:Would a straigth pull system have any major drawbacks (esp. regarding reliability in muddy/swampy conditions)?
Aka why aren't they more widespread?
Y'all should just listen to Purpelia.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:40 amBTW, watch the video. It's worth watching not only to explain the myth and reality but also just as a good piece of trivia.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:16 amPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:19 amPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:20 amPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:15 amAlright, question. I'm into-ing the :not:AK as service rifles, and I need some help with figures.
It's got a :not:FAL Para sidefolder, firing my 7.2mm cartridge, with a surrender handle and non-recip forend charging handle that wraps over the gas tube. With what everyone knows about AKs here, what would be a reasonable weight and ROF for it?
It's got a :not:FAL Para sidefolder, firing my 7.2mm cartridge, with a surrender handle and non-recip forend charging handle that wraps over the gas tube. With what everyone knows about AKs here, what would be a reasonable weight and ROF for it?
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:20 am3-3.5kg unloaded, ~650rpm.
If you're comparing it to the AK, not sure why you're expecting it to be different.
If you're comparing it to the AK, not sure why you're expecting it to be different.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:27 amImperializt Russia wrote:3-3.5kg unloaded, ~650rpm.
If you're comparing it to the AK, not sure why you're expecting it to be different.
Different cartridge. 7x48 instead of 8x39.
Different folder stock. FALPara stock instead of AKMS sidefolder.
Milled receiver instead of stamped.
FAMAS-like surrender handle housing sights.
Non-reciprocating charging handle on forend.
Timeable gas system, with more settings than a FAL.
So basically a Yukonized :not:AK that may or may not in the future be used as the basis of a bullpup.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:31 amAre squad level snipers a good idea? Well, more along the lines of designated marksmen, with a not!M76 or something rather than an actual sniper, but should I do this at squad level?
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:36 amBratislavskaya wrote:Are squad level snipers a good idea? Well, more along the lines of designated marksmen, with a not!M76 or something rather than an actual sniper, but should I do this at squad level?
Definitely. Give your squad a marksman and a desig marksman rifle. 'Cause sure as hell, your enemy will employ similar soldiers to harass your infantry. This way they can shoot back.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:38 amBratislavskaya wrote:Are squad level snipers a good idea? Well, more along the lines of designated marksmen, with a not!M76 or something rather than an actual sniper, but should I do this at squad level?
Squad level DMR is fine, sniper is probably pushing it. Snipers are more of a battalion asset.