Old Small Arms Revived...... With Some Tweaks

[dy031101]

Let's hope we'll get back to the gun customization theme soon...... but while it's certain that there are self-appointed "gun purists" who think it's their god-given duty to tell others how to handle their guns even though the latter can already do so responsibly and safely, that's how it is to share venues of discussions.  We're bound to run into talks we don't necessarily much care for, or maybe sometimes people are just curious on what the silly stuff is all about- we'd briefly mention it and then just move on.

[jcf]

Guys,

My foot is nowhere near my mouth and at no point did I suggest that G&A readers in the US are ill-educated rednecks.  In fact, I would suggest that JCF was the one who made that inference, not me.  After all this is a quote "rather than the Guns & Ammo which shootin arn is better that t'other form it has taken" from him.

Rickshaw is however correct in suggest that the gun-lobby isn't quite the force here as it is in the US.  That being said, members of said gun-lobby don't necessarily follow the norm that JCF suggested.  Plenty of idiots out there who own guns, but also plenty of non gun owners too who would classify as idiots.

Regards,

Mav

Truth is John, I never made any inference that gun-hobbyists were idiots, they can be terminally boring at times  , however I did
not suggest they were stupid rustics, you made that leap. The 'shootin' arn' term you took offense to was a reference to
old Hollywood and TV 'oaters' and Yosemite Sam, the rootinest tootinest hombre West o' the Pecos. In udder woids, it was a joke Son,
I say a joke.

I grew up around guns and gun hobbyists, and have known several of the fringe types, some truly in scary monsters 'gun-nut'
territory  , and I have fired/used a variety of 20th century weapons from a WWI Canadian Ross through SMLE  to M1/M14
and on through Ak47, M16, HK 91 etc. I came close to buying an AUG in the early '80s but came to my senses. 

All of my personal collection are 19th century pieces with the oldest being an armory percussion conversion Hall breech-loader
and the newest an 1889 Remington 12ga. double with beautiful Damascus twist barrels. The oldest weapon I have fired is an
original Model 1868 .50-70 Trapdoor Springfield rifle, great fun.

[Old Wombat]

Which is why people should be very careful with what they write in these forums because it can all be so easily misconstrued & misunderstood that civil conversations devolve into arguments & feuds.

I am a (currently) non-gun-owning supporter of gun ownership & reduced regulations..... That's just to state where My position of firearms is based.

As an ex-member of the Royal Australian Navy, Australian Army & Northern Territory Police I had the opportunity to fire quite a number of military small-arms & my favourites are the L1A1 SLR, the Uzi SMG & the 1911A1 ACP.

Like everything, these are personal choices based on personal experience.

The modern trend towards a mid-sized round is to rectify faults known to exist since Vietnam but not really experienced until Kuwait - the 5.56mm NATO round is too light for long-range accuracy in open terrain, where hitting the enemy further away is both possible & an advantage, has limited stopping power & has a tendency to be severely deflected by even light obstructions. The 6.5mm & 6.8mm rounds have the benefit of better range, penetration, hitting power & accuracy plus a lighter weight than the old 7.62mm round, thereby allowing troops to carry more ammunition.

I, for one, look forward to the new weapons based on these mid-calibre rounds & hope to see a range of interesting designs (although I doubt it).

Someone earlier wondered why modern military assault rifles were all starting to look alike, the answer is simple; over 50 years of research & development has reached the point where the designs are all based around the optimal practical ergonomic design for a combat assault weapon.

Note: I do not say "perfect ergonomic design", because, apart from perfect ergonomics being different for every person, the ergonomics also have to take into account mass manufacturing of a standard weapon, ease of maintenance, mechanical reliability under field conditions, flexible functionality of design and cost of production.

[dy031101]

Could an external-ignition firearm be made to share bullet projectiles with metallic cartridge firearms?

If the answer is yes, what feature does the external-ignition firearm can have (for example, would breech-loading be okay?) and what does it need to have?

[rallymodeller]

I think that'd be a pretty tough proposition; the entire idea of a cartridge-with-contained-primer was to remove the need for finicky external-ignition. Even percussion-cap weapons -- and there were quite a few breechloading examples -- fell when self-contained cartridges showed up on the scene.

[dy031101]

I think that'd be a pretty tough proposition; the entire idea of a cartridge-with-contained-primer was to remove the need for finicky external-ignition. Even percussion-cap weapons -- and there were quite a few breechloading examples -- fell when self-contained cartridges showed up on the scene.

No no no, I'm not saying wheel-lock should come back into practical use but am asking this from a hobby point of view.  

[jcf]

Could an external-ignition firearm be made to share bullet projectiles with metallic cartridge firearms?

If the answer is yes, what feature does the external-ignition firearm can have (for example, would breech-loading be okay?) and what does it need to have?

1. Yes. There were a number of metallic cartridge breech-loading conversions of rifled muskets in the 19th century
where the calibre was unchanged.

2. Breech-loading non-cartridge arms never worked very well, you'd be better of with a muzzle-loader.

[rickshaw]

Could an external-ignition firearm be made to share bullet projectiles with metallic cartridge firearms?

Yes.  You would need to adopt a paper cartridge - as in the Dreyse/Chassepot rifles.   You would need to ensure some mechanism that when it is inserted, the cartridge is deliberately split, so that the powder is exposed.  Otherwise your external ignition mechanism would not be able to ensure the spark reaches the powder.  As with the Dreyse/Chassepot obturation will be a problem - in fact it will be much worse because you've got a hole from your external ignition mechanism into the breech.  That will limit velocities and increase wear on the weapon with gas erosion unless you deliberately limit muzzle velocity.

If the answer is yes, what feature does the external-ignition firearm can have (for example, would breech-loading be okay?) and what does it need to have?

The main advantages of metal cartridges are that they ensure proper obturation (sealing) of the breech.  Without the case providing that, basically gas-tight seal you have to go to some much more difficult ways of achieving it.  Its best illustrated by artillery guns which in their larger calibres still use bagged charges, rather than cases.  Their breach blocks often have to have what are obturation pads - usually made of a composition of rubber covered in leather.   When the charge fires, the obturation pad, under the pressures in the chamber distorts and basically seals the breech block/chamber gap.  Without it, you get "blow back" - gasses escaping around the breech block at extremely high velocity, much to the detriment of the gun crew and potentially dangerous to any explosives stored handily near by.  This system was developed by Colonel De Bange of the RA.

The aforementioned Dreyse gun was a bolt action weapon which used paper cartridges.  It was extremely innovative in its day.  The Prussians adopted it.  It worked by the bolt being withdrawn a round placed in its path and it being rammed home.  When the trigger was pulled, a needle pierced the paper cartridge to the base of the bullet where the ignitor was pasted.  Obturation as obtained by a series of leather washers.  These however became worn very quickly and one thing that most observers noted when watching Prussian infantry firing was the heavy smoke that would often issue from the breach of the weapon.

The idea worked well, in theory but poorly in practice.  Apart from obturation problems, it also resulted in hot, still often burning paper embers left in the chamber which did not obviously mix well with the next paper cartridge to be inserted.

It was quickly superceded.  Interestingly, the French in 1870 actually had a superior, bolt action rifle which also utilised paper cartridges, the Fusil modèle 1866 or "Chassepot" but didn't have many in action.  They had been caught transitioning from muzzle loaders by the outbreak of war.  The Chassepot had a superior obturation mechanism using rubber rings rather than leather in the Dreyse, which interestingly are still seen today in the descendant "De Bange" obturation system I mentioned above in reference to artillery.  The Chassepot fired a small calibre round at higher velocity compared to the Dreyse, allowing the French to engage at longer ranges while the large, soft-lead bullet caused horrendious wounds.

Whereas the Dryese largely disappears after 1870, the Chassepot was later developed to use metal cartridges.

[NARSES2]

[ These however became worn very quickly and one thing that most observers noted when watching Prussian infantry firing was the heavy smoke that would often issue from the breach of the weapon.

Yup and caused problems for the poor old infantry using the gun. Many suffered temporary (in some cases permanent) eye damge from the debris coming from the breach. Meant that they tended to shy away from the breech and therefore their aim became a little wayward.

As for the Chassepot, during the Franco-Prussian war the French were known to fire the rifle from the hip in order to provide plunging fire. The German infantry thus had to enter a beaten zone which rapidly became a killing field before they could engage effectively with a rifle that was 40 years old by then. This and their tactics in the advance accounts for the horrendous losses their infantry suffered.

[jcf]

The earlier Sharps were the only truly successful breech-loading external-ignition paper (or linen) cartridge firearm.
When it was closed the knife-edged breech-block would slice off the end of the cartridge exposing the powder.
The Maynard tape and Sharps pellet auto-priming systems were both used.
http://www.jesseshunting.com/articles/guns/category16/35.html

The Maynard and Burnside carbines and rifles (amongst others) were also external ignition, however both used a
re-loadable metal casing.

[icchan]

On the topic of old-style stuff, I was fooling around with the weird child of a PPSH-41 and a Smelly, with an M1 Carbine.

Ballpark a 9x31mm round, a bit shorter and fatter than a typical .30 carbine.  Thoughts?

[Maverick]

Looks quite good, very pre WW2 in a fashion.  My only concern would be the scope if it were from that era.

Regards,

Mav

[icchan]

Looks quite good, very pre WW2 in a fashion.  My only concern would be the scope if it were from that era.

That's definitely the case for the Mk III.  Call the Mk IV-H a postwar mod, ca 1950 or so.  It's supposed to just be a little two power lightweight scope, in a higher mount to keep the irons clear.  Nothing special.  Glad you like!

[Maverick]

Yeah, I realised it was just a day optic, not a scope per se, but they're not the thing you normally see even in the 50s or 60s, but the basic idea is great and definitely within the 30-50 time frame.  I suppose you could say similar for the silencer/suppressor as a detachable unit, but it's whif after all.  I'd like to see more on the theme, that's for sure.  Thanks for posting.

Regards,

Mav

[dragon]

Could an external-ignition firearm be made to share bullet projectiles with metallic cartridge firearms?

Yes.  You would need to adopt a paper cartridge - as in the Dreyse/Chassepot rifles.   You would need to ensure some mechanism that when it is inserted, the cartridge is deliberately split, so that the powder is exposed.  Otherwise your external ignition mechanism would not be able to ensure the spark reaches the powder.  As with the Dreyse/Chassepot obturation will be a problem - in fact it will be much worse because you've got a hole from your external ignition mechanism into the breech.  That will limit velocities and increase wear on the weapon with gas erosion unless you deliberately limit muzzle velocity.

If the answer is yes, what feature does the external-ignition firearm can have (for example, would breech-loading be okay?) and what does it need to have?

The main advantages of metal cartridges are that they ensure proper obturation (sealing) of the breech.  Without the case providing that, basically gas-tight seal you have to go to some much more difficult ways of achieving it.  Its best illustrated by artillery guns which in their larger calibres still use bagged charges, rather than cases.  Their breach blocks often have to have what are obturation pads - usually made of a composition of rubber covered in leather.   When the charge fires, the obturation pad, under the pressures in the chamber distorts and basically seals the breech block/chamber gap.  Without it, you get "blow back" - gasses escaping around the breech block at extremely high velocity, much to the detriment of the gun crew and potentially dangerous to any explosives stored handily near by.  This system was developed by Colonel De Bange of the RA.

The aforementioned Dreyse gun was a bolt action weapon which used paper cartridges.  It was extremely innovative in its day.  The Prussians adopted it.  It worked by the bolt being withdrawn a round placed in its path and it being rammed home.  When the trigger was pulled, a needle pierced the paper cartridge to the base of the bullet where the ignitor was pasted.  Obturation as obtained by a series of leather washers.  These however became worn very quickly and one thing that most observers noted when watching Prussian infantry firing was the heavy smoke that would often issue from the breach of the weapon.

The idea worked well, in theory but poorly in practice.  Apart from obturation problems, it also resulted in hot, still often burning paper embers left in the chamber which did not obviously mix well with the next paper cartridge to be inserted.

It was quickly superceded.  Interestingly, the French in 1870 actually had a superior, bolt action rifle which also utilised paper cartridges, the Fusil modèle 1866 or "Chassepot" but didn't have many in action.  They had been caught transitioning from muzzle loaders by the outbreak of war.  The Chassepot had a superior obturation mechanism using rubber rings rather than leather in the Dreyse, which interestingly are still seen today in the descendant "De Bange" obturation system I mentioned above in reference to artillery.  The Chassepot fired a small calibre round at higher velocity compared to the Dreyse, allowing the French to engage at longer ranges while the large, soft-lead bullet caused horrendious wounds.

Whereas the Dryese largely disappears after 1870, the Chassepot was later developed to use metal cartridges.

I suspect a lot of those same issues are being revisited currently with the ongoing research on caseless ammo.