Guns On Guns - Grenade Launcher And Shotgun Attachments On Rifles

[Maverick]

I don't know if the Masada is designed to be interchangable in calibre routinely.  Just that the weapon is marketed in popular calibres like many handguns, which seems to be an affectation of the US.

That being said, the US military reluctance to bullpups is a case of 'not made here', like most any other technical innovations that have come along that they haven't thought of.  The British 7mm round vs 7.62mm 'NATO' is another case in point.  I'm not being rude to our American cousins, but that mentality pervades much of their military & technical mindset.  You only have to look at the FNH USA & HK USA sites to see how they produce amazing US guns... Hello... FN Herstal and H&K have been around long before either of the US subsidiaries every did, but it seems more palatable to the American psyche to have 'made in the USA' stamped on something regardless of its origins.

Whilst I realise that individuals have their own likes and dislikes are are willing to 'buy NON-American', the vast majority of their procurement seems to have the complete opposite in mind, regardless of the capabilities of the weapon.  I was surprised when they picked up the Minimi and FN-MAG, but they are of course products of the FNH USA stable surely and not some foreign nonsense. 

Regards,

Mav

[sotoolslinger]

Well I will stay away from the America verses the world argument. As to weapons configuration I feel that not only bullpups but all rifles and shotguns with pistol grips are awkward pieces o crap
The classic hunting rifle type long curving grip with a full fixed stock is the superior weapon.It allows for much freer movement and grip adjustment from most firing positions. A lot of which weapon you prefer is what you were trained/raised with.
I wholeheartedly agree with the caliber question. I personally think all troops should be using an intermediate 6.5 mm round. My favorite hunting rifles are custom Mausers in .275 Rigby (7mm Mauser ) and a 6.5 X 55 Swedish.
Take a .308 case  shorten it down to 40 mm and neck it to take a 6.5mm 100 grain copper with steel insert projectile and you would have an excellent round.
If you want to make me happy you could then stick it in a scaled up Ruger Mini with synthetic classic style stock.  Stick an OPTICAL scope of around 2 power (no electronics, batteries are poo-poo (with an english accent) in combat) and nothing would be safe out to as far as I can see you.

[dy031101]

As you'd likely know by looking at my recent updates in the mental note thread, I've been playing with the "Pimp My Gun" game app during what free time I had for the past few days.  When I want to put up a grenade launcher under Picatinny rail forearms, the app only had the M203 for the purpose (and it appears that there does exist a rail-mounted M203), which got me wondering...... is there actually a version of AG36 and/or M320 that can be mounted on the rail?

I've seen airsoft stuff...... but I guess I shouldn't automatically assume that the real thing also exists that way.

[Maverick]

Sotool, I think it's quite true that the weapon style you grow up with influences your own thoughts on the 'perfect' weapon style.  The first rifle I shot was an L1A1 (Aussie FN-FAL) at the age of 13 and I became quite enamoured with the weapon.  That being said, the physics of a straight-through stock vs the curved traditional stock seem to be obviously apparant to me.  Having used both, I much prefer the control that a pistol grip gives and the recoil impulse being fed through the straight line, so in that we'll agree to disagree.

Donny, HK produce an AG-C which I've seen mounted below an M4 on a rail, perhaps that's the influence on that.  That being said, I've seen plenty of railed M203 and even a stand alone AG36 which tends to suggest that a rail system for it might be possible.  I guess it's just a case of supply vs demand.

Regards,

Mav

[sotoolslinger]

Actually Mav we don't disagree I totally concede that the straight line stock with pistol grip gives better recoil control. I also think the L1A1 is one of the finest weapons ever made. I have fired them with British and Aussie troops on Ft. Bragg. If you were to take that weapon and scale her down to take an intermediate 6.5 round like I mentioned in my previous post it would be a nifty combat rifle.
I simply prefer old school stock design for it's dynamic handling qualities. It is totally a matter of individual preference.
If you were to hand me that gun AND a 6-9 round 12 bore with good iron sights I would be a happy camper.

[rickshaw]

Each to their own.  I've trained on SMLEs, L1a1, Parker-Hales, F88s.   Each had their points but I have to admit that my favourite was the F88.  It was such a beautifully designed weapon, combining a lovely long barrel in a compact weapon which was handy and well balanced.   I carried the L1a1 for 8-9 years and I have to admit, even now, 20+ years later my arms still sometime miss it's weight - thats what muscle memory does for you.  I loved the SMLE and the Parker-Hales for their accuracy but appreciated the L1a1 and the F88 for their rates of fire.

One of the problems with the conventional, old style stock is that the stock has to have a bend in it to bring the weapon up to the sight line in order for it to be comfortably fired.  This imparts a non-linear force when its fire and the more rapidly its fired, the greater that force becomes, driving the weapon muzzle higher and higher.  You simply can't combine a straight-line stock with a conventional comb.   The pistol grip IMHO imparts better control of the weapon as well, ensuring that its pointing correctly and provides a better grip when using the bayonet.  The only time its a disadvantage is when you're trying to buttstroke someone, I've found.

One thing that does annoy me about the people I see on youtube (particularly) using bolt-action military rifles.  They don't know how to use them properly.  They "palm" the bolt and keep removing the butt from the shoulder to work it and then swank around as if they're done something special, not realising that you don't do either of those things.  "Palm" the bolt and get a misfire you're likely to break your hand.  Remove the weapon from the shoulder, you lose your sight picture.

[sotoolslinger]

Not really reinventing Pretty much every case has been necked up or down to every other caliber Thats what wildcatters do

[dy031101]

Found these on this site: QBZ-95 with magazine-fed shotgun attachment.

EDIT: lol

[Maverick]

Sotool, I agree, the L1A1 is a superlative weapon.  The advantages/disadvantages of weight, optics, bullet physics etc can be debated ad inifitum I guess, but for the design of the type, the L1A1 is a super job.  I haven't fired the HK G3 (and I expect it would be very nice) but the SLR seems to embody all aspects of a full calibre weapon effectively.

I don't think that you can compare the L1A1 or any other service rifle fairly to a bolt action weapon though.  The SMLE was of a similar nature (ie: a standard issue weapon - excepting the Sniper variants and the 'Jungle Carbine'  ) but they are obviously generations apart.  The Parker-Hale is a superb sniping platform (as it should be) but isn't something that one would take into a conventional infantry setting.  Its rate of fire, magazine capacity and handling just aren't suited for the regular infantryman.

Donny, it looks like the PRC wants to get into the Masterkey game.  Again, being a bullpup weapon, I think the attachment does some awful things to the handling of the main weapon.  Nice photos tho, thanks for sharing.

Regards,

Mav

[pyro-manic]

That does look like it would be horribly front-heavy.

What about a different approach, with a shotgun along the top of a rifle, much like the OICW configuration? That gives you much better balance, a longer barrel, potential for a bigger magazine. You'd have to work out an interesting trigger arrangement, but it should be perfectly do-able. You might end up with quite a heavy weapon, but not excessively so.

[Maverick]

Having seen the monstrosity that was the OICW platform, I seriously doubt that changing that arrangement from below to above would have any advantage.  In addition, the sighting would be seriously compromised and require a higher mounting that would affect the way the weapon was employed.

I think the PRC are just attempting to make their own version of the XM-26.  Why?  Got me beat, the XM-26 makes Masterkey look postively normal.

Is there a legitimately thought out tactical role for the combo?  Equally blank expression here.  Masterkey is bad enough, but attempting to 'enhance' the design with a larger magazine, longer barrel, etc just further bastardises the original platform, IMO.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

That does look like it would be horribly front-heavy.

Actually, it more than likely evens the balance up.  Bullpups tend, because of the design, to be slightly butt heavy.  This works out better when holding the weapon (all the weight near the shoulder) and makes it quicker to bring to the aim.  Adding weight to the muzzle end tends to make the weapon actually better balanced, whereas on a convention weapon, which is already slightly muzzle heavy, adding weight at that end makes it seriously unbalanced.

What about a different approach, with a shotgun along the top of a rifle, much like the OICW configuration? That gives you much better balance, a longer barrel, potential for a bigger magazine. You'd have to work out an interesting trigger arrangement, but it should be perfectly do-able. You might end up with quite a heavy weapon, but not excessively so.

Well, that might work.  It would end up looking like the AICW:



However, it would make working the action (if a pump) difficult.  It would also make loading difficult if a box-fed weapon (the magazine would have to be long enough, or the magazine well open enough to traverse the depth of the weapon underneath as well.

[sotoolslinger]

What a freaking montrosity

[Maverick]

My thoughts exactly Sotool.  The F88 is a nice weapon, but the AICW (why do we have to try to follow everyone else all the time?) is just ridiculous.  Admittedly, the magazine feed is very clever, but it still bastardises a perfectly good weapon.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

I think its quite a clever design.   However, like the OICW its pretty much a solution looking for a problem IMO.  I also believe that 40mm is, as you can see a tad large for this application.   Having held one of the prototypes and had a bit of a play with it, its much handier and as you can see, a lot less bulky than the OICW or even the XM25 GL derivative of thereof.   By eliminating the need for a box magazine, they've effectively reduced the bulk of the weapon to that of the launching barrel.  This could be perhaps the best use of the MetalStorm technology and far more practicable than the others thus far suggested/demonstrated.

However, what they haven't solved are the basic problems with MetalStorm - the difficulties of changing ammunition types, the differing muzzle velocities between rounds and their effect on the ballistics, while the problems of differing recoil have only partly been addressed (by simply ignoring it in a very low muzzle velocity weapon).

If they opted for say a 30mm round, instead of the 40mm, they'd produce a less bulky weapon but then you lose a lot of the effectiveness that 40mm confers.