Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[milo christiansen]

The BAR sucked in many ways, if you want to base something on a WWII LMG look at the Johnson Light Machine Gun instead, as it was superior to the BAR in almost every way. Really though, select fire is not required for an infantry weapon at this stage. Just ship some trench brooms to take care of close range work, and LMGs for suppression fire.

The revolving rifle was a bad idea from the get go, as a revolver type action is inflexible and hard(er) to reload, etc.

Let's go with 5.45x39 for our rifles, a fine russian caliber perfect for infantry weapons and LMGs. (we need not bother with the steel rod bullet cores just yet...) Our existing round will serve for MGs, snipers, etc. 6.5x55 is only slightly smaller than 7.62x51, I would say go with 7.62x39 if you really want something that massive (but 5.45x39 would be better).

+1 to using D to build a classroom of some kind.

[Amperzand]

The BAR really wasn't a great gun. Effective and durable, yes, but heavy, hard recoiling, not well suited to the light machine gun role, and thoroughly obsolete by the time of its main use. A much more useful weapon would be an assault rifle/long barreled "Carbine" variant with a bipod.

Additionally, automatic fire is very simple to include in a design. Select fire, yes, it requires a redesign. Well-handled automatic fire, yes, requires consideration in any powerful cartridge. But if you just want a semi-auto designed gun to fire in full auto, it's mostly a matter of simplifying the action.

Basically, the difference between semi-auto and auto is whether the gun has a trigger disconnector to re-engage the sear after every round. Machine guns don't have it, semi-autos do. Semi-auto is, IMO, far more useful in a service rifle format, but full auto should by no means be inherently harder to produce. The ammunition use and maintenance would likely go up though.

[Aseaheru]

BAR was a WW1 weapon for the US in WW2. The poles did alot of work on theirs in the 30s, and it was rather nicer in the end.

[Amperzand]

Yep.

Although apparently the M1918 BAR was in some ways superior to the US WW2 BAR, the bipod was more practical and it had a simpler fire control mechanism AFAIK.

[Funk]

The revolving rifle was a bad idea from the get go, as a revolver type action is inflexible and hard(er) to reload, etc.

It's not a bad idea, it's a simple design, simple to operate, easy to build, it tolerates bad or dirty ammo and it's really hard to jam.
but it time to work on a replacement for it.

I'm not keen on a BAR type rife, it's nether fish nor fallow, too heavy and large to be a good rife but to light and lacking a removable barrel or belt feed to be a good machinegun.

As for ammo , i feel that 5.45x39 is too new and a little too small, lets try .22-250 Remington it's fast so it shoots better and hopefully generates some hydrostatic shock.

[milo christiansen]

Umm, too new? That is the cartridge developed for the AK74, it's not exactly on the cutting edge. (the AK47 used 7.62x39, another fine military cartridge) We don't want something totally obsolete...

EDIT: The .22-250's only military use was as a specialist sniper cartridge used "in an attempt to reduce excessive penetration and ricochets", I don't think that's what we want.

[Aseaheru]

 Its about 1905 in our timeframe.

[milo christiansen]

True, but that's no reason not to stretch the limits of our tech to the max... If we a physically capable of producing it, we should use it.

[3_14159]

Let's go with 5.45x39 for our rifles, a fine russian caliber perfect for infantry weapons and LMGs. (we need not bother with the steel rod bullet cores just yet...) Our existing round will serve for MGs, snipers, etc. 6.5x55 is only slightly smaller than 7.62x51, I would say go with 7.62x39 if you really want something that massive (but 5.45x39 would be better).

A good point. From what I see, and extremely roughly, our current 10x60mm round is roughly double the size of the 7.62x51; the 7.62x39 and the 6.5x55 are roughly 75% of that, and the 5.45x39 half of that (so about 20% of the 10x60mm).

Ultimately, though, I feel that the exact size of our small-arms ammunition is pretty much irrelevant. Sure, 6.5x55 is more powerful than 5.45x39, but whether we use 5.45x39 or 5.56x45, or .22-250, it might improve our small-arms firepower by a few percent. Since they are a fairly irrelevant arm (at least, in the number of casualties produced), I don't feel we need to spend too much time thinking about it. I suggested the 6.5mm since it's time-frame appropriate and gives us a few examples to build off.

Umm, too new? That is the cartridge developed for the AK74, it's not exactly on the cutting edge. (the AK47 used 7.62x39, another fine military cartridge) We don't want something totally obsolete...

Well, the 5.45 was developed in the 1970s. Not that it matters (too much); the development time was due to the choice of which round to develop, not technological limitations from my point of view.

[milo christiansen]

the development time was due to the choice of which round to develop, not technological limitations from my point of view.

Exactly. If we wanted to use the fancy steel core armor piercing version it would be little different, but the basic round is fairly simple.

By jumping directly to a fairly modern round for our rifles and squad LMGs (if we ever decide to design one) we can be certain we have a decent ammo design that we never need to worry about again.

[Aseaheru]

 A reminder that you also need to deal with the established military when it comes to new arms.

[Funk]

I suggested the 6.5mm since it's time-frame appropriate and gives us a few examples to build off.

Umm, too new? That is the cartridge developed for the AK74, it's not exactly on the cutting edge. (the AK47 used 7.62x39, another fine military cartridge) We don't want something totally obsolete...

Well, the 5.45 was developed in the 1970s. Not that it matters (too much); the development time was due to the choice of which round to develop, not technological limitations from my point of view.

ok what about .25-35 Winchester it fits the time frame, it a 6.6mm round, a little more power then 7.62×39mm but not much more.
And what we need is something like the Winchester Model 1905 to fire it.

[milo christiansen]

Try to find something that has a lot more information on military performance, reliability under battlefield conditions, etc.

[Funk]

The later 1907/10 models where used in ww1 by the French army, Great Britain's Royal Flying Corps., the U.S. Army Signal Corps Air Service and the Russian Empire.
Late it was a common gun for police departments, armored-car companies, and prison guards.
Building a gun from around our time fames tech level of 1905 is going to be easyer then trying to make a modern assault rifle.
remember we need to mass produce the guns, it's not good having hand full of super weapons and nothing else.

[milo christiansen]

Who said anything about a modern assault rifle? The most modern suggestion that I know of was the SKS, which was a fairly simple and rugged semi-auto designed just after WWII.

The more modern stuff was cartridges, since there is no point in using a very old cartridge when we can use a newer one that uses the same basic tech, just with more years of ballistics research driving its design.