Deleted member 1487
What type of 6.5mm?I don't want to derail the thread but I'm curious now about how the FG-42 might have preformed chambered in 6,5mm?
As it was it actually did pretty well in 7.92:
What type of 6.5mm?I don't want to derail the thread but I'm curious now about how the FG-42 might have preformed chambered in 6,5mm?
Better than 8mm Mauser, unless you have the need to shoot at 1000M for some reasonI don't want to derail the thread but I'm curious now about how the FG-42 might have preformed chambered in 6,5mm?
With enough barrel length I'd better you could hit and kill someone at 1000m just as well with a 6.5mm Arisaka round as a 7.92mm Mauser. Potentially better in fact depending on the ballistics of the bullet itself.Better than 8mm Mauser, unless you have the need to shoot at 1000M for some reason
The Japanese Ariska.What type of 6.5mm?
As it was it actually did pretty well in 7.92:
I don't want to derail the thread but I'm curious now about how the FG-42 might have preformed chambered in 6,5mm?
The 7mm Mauser will not do it in a hand-held automatic wepon because it is much more powerful than 6.5 Arisaka or other intermediate rounds - bullet weigthing 9g was propelled at 900 m/s, vs. 770 m/s of the 6.5 Arisaka when fired from long barrel of the Japanese rifle, or 654 m/s when fired from Fedorov's gun.
That Japanese failed to introduce automatic, or at least semi-auto rifle in the 6.5mm Arisaka was their mistake, especially since they probably knew that was done 20 years before they pushed from Manchuria to China.
Seems like you are to judge who is stupid and who is not, and if someone is found to be stupid, the mud throwing begins:
I see I missed them down-loading the 6.5mm Arisaka.Overpowered round?? 6.5mm Arisaka from Fedorov's gun develops slightly less muzzle energy than the AK-47, much less than EM-2 with .280 British, and same as the StG-44. There was no simple automatic hand-held weapon before ww2 so we can jump to the conclusion that Fedorov's gun was complicated, while being a far better and more realistic proposal than the Chauchat, G-41 or FG-42.
Oh, I've forgot that any gun made by Germans = sexy.
What kind of automatic wepon have you developed that makes you decide what designer gets the mud bath?
So the niece can handle recoil of 5.56 in semiautomatic, ergo anything more powerful is missing a point? Seems like nobody said that to the designers of the AK-47, StG-44 or the (original) EM-2. Nobody was issuing 8-9 assault rifles + 1-2 plain-vanilla bolt-action rifles to a squad, the 1-2 weapons were (L)MGs, sometimes the sniper versions of bolt-action rifles were added.
Quirk also being that 6.5mm, with better Lratio, will be more accurate above 300m than the 7.62-8mm bullets that weight the same, with less drop and less wind drift.
Assault rifles issued on big scale were replacing both 'battle rifles' and SMGs. Thus being suited for ranges far greater than SMGs, while indeed touching, but not replicating the realistic ranges the battle rifle can reach.
Luckly, you understand what an assult rifle is.
There were in fact several. These are just a few of what was developed before, during, and after WW1:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossignol_ENT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribeyrolles_1918_automatic_carbine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cei-Rigotti
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1907#France
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a21631/forgotten-weapons-americas-first-assault-rifle/
The FG-42 was actually less complicated than the Avtomat, especially the later stamped metal versions. The Federov rifle was very intricate and needed to be dramatically simplified to be mass produceable; as it was it was a swiss watch.
Certainly easier to shoot due to lessened recoil. I'd imagine they redesign the bullet to be more aerodynamic and lighter, which would further boost performance in the way that would matter to the accuracy of such a platform. Perhaps they might approach the CETME 7.92x40mm performance with it?The Japanese Ariska.
The Germans themselves wanted StG only squads, with the MGs left to a weapons squad within the platoon to provide fire support from a distance, same with the rifle grenadiers and scoped riflemen (I've even seen some suggestion that the marksmen would better left to the company level). They wanted two all StG squads per platoon backed up by one weapons squad with 2x MG42s for the attack, with an additional MG42 kept in company reserve for a defensive situation. The 3x rifle grenadiers would be directly under the platoon leader's command to provide concentrated 'light mortar' support as needed.Frankly if I'm kitting a squad out in 1946, I want one MG 42, two M1's with a QD scope mount similar to some of the things the Germans had in WWII, and everybody else gets an Stg-44.
Simple blowback is hard to beat for simplicity and reliability. The problem with the Ribeyrolles was the accuracy due to the bolt recoil and the heavy caliber with low muzzle velocity and heavy, flat based round.Thank you.
Is there a comparsion of those rifles, with regard to simplicity, reliability, performance, suitability for firing from shoulder, weight?
The Cei-Rigotti and Ribeyrolles seem like major missed opportunities.
Single shot it was fine; full auto was meant to be from prone with a bipod except at close ranges. The muzzle break made it viable for that.FG-42 might've as well been less complicated, but I don't think it it was as well suited for firing from the shoulder.
Indeed. Nevertheless Fydorov did have knowledge of the much simpler designs of the era like the ENT and Winchester, which were FAR less complex and indeed less complex than the FG-42 (but less accurate due to their construction).We also have a thing that FG-42 was 25 years later design, that should've given it's constructors some advantage.
Given the relative lack of moving parts it still would demonstrate the simplicity of the SKS and Garand relative to the Avtomat. The Soviets had access to the Federov and the Garand; they chose to copy the Garand (and M1 Carbine) for the AK-47 and SKS, while shit canning Federov production in the 1920s for being too complex and finnicky in service, despite Fydorov himself working to design weapons for the Soviets and refine his systems. Technically the DP28 with it's flaws was the product of his developments, as his student, who he worked with in the 1910s-30s, including on the Avtomat was Degtyarev:The people on the video made the workshop strip, not the field strip. We can try to disassemble the M1 Garand or the SKS in that way, removing metal from wood and see how finicky that gets.
I got one better for you:The Japanese Ariska.
Crist's specifications were that "6mm Optimum" ammunition achieve, with a 100 grain bullet:
...of which he noted, "...even with a conservative estimate for the muzzle velocity of the 6mm Optimum cartridge, computed data for 1200-meter velocity, flight-time, wind-deflection, and trajectory height are all greatly superior to both 5.56 and 7.62 NATO rounds."[1]
- velocity: 2,900fps (muzzle), 1149fps (1,200m)
- energy: 1,867ft-lbs (muzzle), 293ft-lbs (1,200m)
- flight-time to 1,200m: 2.21 seconds
- deflection @ 1,200m in 10mph crosswind: 151 inches
- maximum trajectory: 244 inches
And you can conclude all that from me asking you to clarify what you draw such authority from? I think you may be a bit over-defensive.Carp and moan all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you simply misunderstand the concept, and the relevant factors and principles behind the concept.
Amusingly enough I have little interest in either the Avtomat or its round, which are both interesting but impractical curiosities in the WW2 timeframe. The primary obsession with those seems to be yours. I just wanted to check if you really were just an arrogant prick who has unilaterally appointed himself as the internet’s chief decider on all things rifle-related, and now I know the answer to that question.Your shortcomings are not that you are necessarily wrong (except with the Avtomat and 6.5mm Japanese, you're just wrong as hell there), but that you simply don't see the common ideas and underlying concepts behind everything you talk about.
You have a lot of superficial knowledge, but you're just not connecting the dots for some reason.
The French actually did something like that (not really 7.62x39) with their 7.65x35 that they ended up not adopting IIRC for NATO reasons.Just a thought. A hypothetical one. The US having been impressed with the tactical performance of the Stg-44 decides to up the power of the M1 carbine round to something in the 7.62x39 range. Could the basic paction of the M1 carbine handle it? Would it becontrolable? And how long before we see "burst" settings instead of or in addition to auto and semi?
Just a thought. A hypothetical one. The US having been impressed with the tactical performance of the Stg-44 decides to up the power of the M1 carbine round to something in the 7.62x39 range. Could the basic paction of the M1 carbine handle it? Would it becontrolable? And how long before we see "burst" settings instead of or in addition to auto and semi?
And you can conclude all that from me asking you to clarify what you draw such authority from? I think you may be a bit over-defensive.
Amusingly enough I have little interest in either the Avtomat or its round, which are both interesting but impractical curiosities in the WW2 timeframe. The primary obsession with those seems to be yours. I just wanted to check if you really were just an arrogant prick who has unilaterally appointed himself as the internet’s chief decider on all things rifle-related, and now I know the answer to that question.