Infantry Discussion Thread 9: Parabellum [NO KAIJU]

[Rhodesialund]

Shhhhh, I just shitpost every now and then.


But yeah, I will give you that 8mm Mauser was loaded hotter than 30-06 by a considerable margin.

*FEELSGOODMAN

Not really feelsgoodman now lately, considering that 8mm Mauser is just a shell of it's former self. Modern day loadings are very anemic in comparison to what Poland and Germany were running.

[Husseinarti]

The wz. 28 Browning was the second best developed BAR model.

In 1939? It was the best BAR and like the top 5 IARs you could get, the list, not in any real order, was like wz. 28, Bren/vz. 33, M1918A2, vz. 26, and the FN Model D.

The bestest BAR would be a wz. 28 with the simplified quick-change barrel of the later Swedish BARs.

[Eisarn-Ara]

Oh blyet, it's so strange.

[Purpelia]

Here is a concept I genuinely think should work rather well. You just tell me if you agree or not and why.

First thing first. I am talking about roller locked firearms here, not roller delayed. So MG42 and not G3/FAL. I am aware of the difference and this is not a mistake. That being out of the way...

With a roller locked firearm you typically have two rollers, placed symmetrically either side of the bolt. These are used to lock the bolt like with any locked action. Now my idea is to instead of having two rollers have three, the third being located on the top of the bolt surface. So as the bolt locks the two side rollers spread out and the third pitches upward locking into the top of the trunnion.

The reasoning for it is that by spreading the strain along more sides of the bolt basically make it more secure and more accurate. That's what the AR-15 bolt does with its full circle of small lugs.

So, opinions?

[Imperializt Russia]

Oh blyet, it's so strange.

That to me looks more like a status symbol than a practical firearm.

[Imperializt Russia]

Here is a concept I genuinely think should work rather well. You just tell me if you agree or not and why.

First thing first. I am talking about roller locked firearms here, not roller delayed. So MG42 and not G3/FAL. I am aware of the difference and this is not a mistake. That being out of the way...

With a roller locked firearm you typically have two rollers, placed symmetrically either side of the bolt. These are used to lock the bolt like with any locked action. Now my idea is to instead of having two rollers have three, the third being located on the top of the bolt surface. So as the bolt locks the two side rollers spread out and the third pitches upward locking into the top of the trunnion.

The reasoning for it is that by spreading the strain along more sides of the bolt basically make it more secure and more accurate. That's what the AR-15 bolt does with its full circle of small lugs.

So, opinions?

Having more lugs/rollers doesn't make something more secure by virtue of "more". Artillery pieces only have one "lug", the breech block. They're pretty secure.

Overall manufacturing tolerances in producing those rollers will probably have a substantially greater effect on precision.
A third roller lug is another part to lose, to break, and to build.

[Purpelia]

Having more lugs/rollers doesn't make something more secure by virtue of "more". Artillery pieces only have one "lug", the breech block. They're pretty secure.

Overall manufacturing tolerances in producing those rollers will probably have a substantially greater effect on precision.
A third roller lug is another part to lose, to break, and to build.

It's not about having more rollers but about having a different stress distribution. Each locking lug, or in this case roller acts as a stress transfer point between the bolt and the receiver. But as the recoil force is entirely along the bolt face this means that what these lugs are transferring is effectively a turning moment. You can think of it like a lever really. Imagine a lever that's hinged at the center of the roller and extends to the center of the bolt which is where the pushing happens. That's actually how I'd model it in terms of engineering. And the more evenly that is distributed the less the bolt will want to twist and turn instead of pushing evenly back. It's basically the same difference as having a rotating bolt with one big lug on the left side of the bolt vs two smaller lugs on either side. Even with the same overall surface the one lug design is far more likely to sheer.

I actually have an education in engineering which is why I came up with this idea. It just seems like something that would greatly improve the overall balance of the mechanism.

[Fordorsia]

The Kg m/21-37 is objectively the best BAR version.

naw

[Eisarn-Ara]

Hey fellas, what is your ideal length of barrel for a bullpup AMR?

[Purpelia]

Hey fellas, what is your ideal length of barrel for a bullpup AMR?

Not an expert here but if I were firing a big and heavy high caliber rifle I'd rather have something that's semi auto but regular configuration simply so that I could have an excuse to put one giant recoil spring in the back to make it not break my shoulder.

[Puzikas]

Geepurpwhydoesyourmomletyouhave3rollers.wav

It's admittedly not the weirdest idea I've heard but its not really necessay. You're attempting to squeeze an unnecessary amount of accuracy that would be virtually unnoticed, it there would be any appreciable gain at all.

It's just another part to break or wear out. Its going to take unnecessary machining and tooling for virtually no gain.

The Kg m/21-37 is objectively the best BAR version.

naw

Not even in 6.5 svodish what a pleb 1/10 apply urself

Hey fellas, what is your ideal length of barrel for a bullpup AMR?

What caliber

[Fordorsia]

Not even in 6.5 svodish what a pleb 1/10 apply urself

9.5x75 best

[Puzikas]

I mean if you're retarded CSAT I guess

[Purpelia]

Geepurpwhydoesyourmomletyouhave3rollers.wav

It's admittedly not the weirdest idea I've heard but its not really necessay. You're attempting to squeeze an unnecessary amount of accuracy that would be virtually unnoticed, it there would be any appreciable gain at all.

It's just another part to break or wear out. Its going to take unnecessary machining and tooling for virtually no gain.?

I see. I'll just stick to 2 rollers than.

[Rhodesialund]

Having more lugs/rollers doesn't make something more secure by virtue of "more". Artillery pieces only have one "lug", the breech block. They're pretty secure.

Overall manufacturing tolerances in producing those rollers will probably have a substantially greater effect on precision.
A third roller lug is another part to lose, to break, and to build.

It's not about having more rollers but about having a different stress distribution. Each locking lug, or in this case roller acts as a stress transfer point between the bolt and the receiver. But as the recoil force is entirely along the bolt face this means that what these lugs are transferring is effectively a turning moment. You can think of it like a lever really. Imagine a lever that's hinged at the center of the roller and extends to the center of the bolt which is where the pushing happens. That's actually how I'd model it in terms of engineering. And the more evenly that is distributed the less the bolt will want to twist and turn instead of pushing evenly back. It's basically the same difference as having a rotating bolt with one big lug on the left side of the bolt vs two smaller lugs on either side. Even with the same overall surface the one lug design is far more likely to sheer.

I actually have an education in engineering which is why I came up with this idea. It just seems like something that would greatly improve the overall balance of the mechanism.

Honestly, it sounds like a good idea in theory, but a horrible one in practicality. Please note the pictures.






You already have big simple pieces, and want to keep it that way for ease of machining/production. Including for field repairs/cleaning. I won't dwell on it long because Puz pretty much nailed it on the head.

[Minroz]

Onto topic of rifles, which sniper rifle in modern-day you considered to be the best out of all?

AWM for all of teh winz

Okay~ But isn't it replaced by [url=Accuracy International Arctic Warfare]AIAW?[/url]

[Imperializt Russia]

The Arctic Warfare Magnum is a more powerful version of the Arctic Warfare.

[Fordorsia]

I mean if you're retarded CSAT I guess

You're just mad that I made the BAR not shit

[EsToVnIa]

AWM for all of teh winz

Okay~ But isn't it replaced by [url=Accuracy International Arctic Warfare]AIAW?[/url]

why do you feel the need to hotlink stuff that's easily google-able

catering to purp is an unwise path

[Purpelia]

Okay~ But isn't it replaced by [url=Accuracy International Arctic Warfare]AIAW?[/url]

why do you feel the need to hotlink stuff that's easily google-able

catering to purp is an unwise path

What does any of this have to do with me? I was not partaking in any discussion on sniper rifles.

[Eisarn-Ara]

What caliber

In the 12.7x99 to 14xcommiewhatever-mm range. (sorry about being a bit nebulous here)

[Imperializt Russia]

So basically, an AMR.

The bullpup bullshit "thing" I had from the storefront had a 24" and 36" barrel option, iirc.

[Eisarn-Ara]

So basically, an AMR.

The bullpup bullshit "thing" I had from the storefront had a 24" and 36" barrel option, iirc.

Well Samoz, that is why I specifically stated "AMR Barrel length?" followed by answering puzikas's question about caliber range. When he and a few others responds I'll have an acceptable amount of opinions and suggestions to work with (yours included m8).

[Puzikas]

660-800mm

[Imperializt Russia]

The NTW-20 has a 1000mm (39") barrel in its 20mm configuration, and a whopping 1220mm (48") barrel in its 14.5mm config. The PTRD had a 53" barrel to the PTRS' 47 inch barrel, both 14.5mm weapons again ofc, though were built to kill tanks of that era, and may arguably be oversize for AM purposes today.

The M82 and Tac-50 .50 rifles both have 29 inch barrels (M82 apparently has a 20 inch model), the Accuracy International AW50 has a 27 inch barrel, in common with the AS50 rifle of the same company.

So I assume it depends on the cartridge.
This makes the 24 and 36 inch barrel options for my old rifle somewhat make sense, as it was supposed to be available in a .50 and 14.5mm model. Though the 36 inch barrel was available for both weapon systems, suggesting the 14.5mm weapon had a much shorter barrel than was probably ideal.