Check out Headstamp Publishing’s extensive catalog of excellent books:
https://www.headstamppublishing.com/home-forgotten
As Sweden experimented with updating the AG42 Ljungman in the 1950s, one of the intermediate patterns was the fm/54. This took the 7.62mm NATO short stroke piston conversion already developed and added a 20-round box magazine and a Carl Gustaf m/45 folding stock to it. Not a Carl Gustaf style stock, mind you, but one cut directly off an m/45.
Well,I mean you wouldn’t want to get shot by it. Is what they probably thought, then moved on to design something else.
I suspect that if this had reached production, odds are that there’d be a somewhat more elegant stock solution applied to it.
As is, I rather have to marvel at the fact that they went to the effort of setting up the molds to cast that lower receiver, because it sure as heck doesn’t look like it was machined from billet… That had to be a rather pricey part of the prototyping.
If you use a simple sand casting box and manually polish&adjust the metal parts, you can cast low quantities without a large overhead.
20 rounds of 7.62x51mm in a rifle with a narrow, tubular SMG stock?
It might not bother Swedish troops in winter kit, but anyone else would probably have a badly bruised pectoralis major or even a cracked clavicle after one or two magazines.
I really don’t like to think what it would do to the thoracoacromial artery.
clear ether
eon
There’s a whole subgenre of shooting videos out there with guys firing rounds like the .577 Tyrannosaur apparently to show how ballsy one is to deliberately expose himself to injuries you describe. ‘C’est magnifique, need c’est let pas shooting sports.’
The folding stock conversion would work better on the Egyptian Rasheed.
Designing a folding stock for a rifle or shotgun is really more of an art than a science.
SMGs aren’t so bad, as the individual recoil impulses aren’t that heavy. So the M/45 aka Madsen type side-folder actually works reasonably well. The German MP40 type under-folder and its near-cousin, the Russian PPS-43 over-top-folder, are also pretty practical.
Once you get up into rifles and shotguns, though, recoil becomes a major issue in stock design. The Chinese Type 56-1 with the MP40 type folder is a masterpiece of bad assumptions, and you know it every time you pull the trigger. (I have a faint “line” on my right cheek courtesy of one of those in burst fire; if it were a little more distinct, I could probably claim I got it at Heidelberg.)
As previously stated, the Franchi SPAS-12 folder is a torture device, seemingly run up from leftover auto parts. The Benelli shotgun folding stocks aren’t too bad; at least they have decent-sized and thickness butt pads.
On rifles, other than the Galil-type side-folder, most “folders” are useless and some are actually dangerous to the user. While it’s a PITA to get a proper cheek-weld on, the old Colt Model 609 style retracting stock is probably the least-worst one. It’s worth noting that several armies have adopted variants of it to their AK-type rifles.
Myself, I’ve only ever used a folding-stock item when there was nothing else available. Frankly, my definition of a proper stock falls between a Winchester 1894 and a Remington 870.
Oil-finished walnut, if you please.
clear ether
eon
If you like folding, but do not typical folding stock, then use Axor FS https://modernfirearms.net/en/shotguns/turkey-shotguns/axor-fs-2/
Nice, but I’d prefer it in 20-gauge.
cheers
eon
@Eon,
Not to quibble, but the Galil folding stock is basically the FN FAL Para stock with deleted bits and somewhat stronger springing.
I’m ambivalent on the idea of folding stocks. On the one hand, if you’re mostly lugging a weapon around (as opposed to actually mostly shooting it…), then the folding stock offers a lot of “more likely to have weapon on you when you need it”, which isn’t the minor issue you might think. If you’re issued something relatively cumbersome, and expected to “do things” while carrying it, guess what happens to it? Yeah; arms get stacked, and you’re twenty feet away from it or further when the fecal end product hits the fan. This is what is known in military circles as “a bad thing”.
So, if you’re given a weapon you can fold into a more compact package, you’re a lot more likely to have the thing with you when reality ensues. Which is, overall, a good thing.
This reasoning is what led to the development and issue of the M4 Carbine, only it didn’t get issued to the people that they thought they were procuring it for, namely the support troops. Instead, the Infantry glommed onto them, and the support guys never saw carbine one until well into the 2000s.
My take on the issue is that a.) the design and procurement folks apparently never went out into the field and actually examined what the soldiers were really doing with the weapons they designed, and that b.) convenience is a lot higher priority than anyone really imagines. For real soldiers, that is.
As with all things, the “desire path” is the truest one; you just have to be careful about whether or not you’re actually treading it, when you decide things from “on high”.
The rocket scientists behind the M16A2 and the M4 projects thought they were; time has shown their works for what they were: Problematic. The M4 should have been something with a mid-length gas system and about a 16″ barrel, and the M16A2 should never have existed in the first damn place. A *&)&*$&$#@ National Match-optimized design with an LMG rear sight had no business being issued to line soldiers. None whatsoever. Something that actual events and the natural “desire path” of procurement has shown over the last thirty years.
Ok, I stand corrected on the Galil/FAL stock. IIRC both were predated by the Beretta BM59 Para.
All seem to have been “inspired” by the M1A1 Carbine folder circa 1944. And it probably drew “inspiration” (or at least “No, don’t do it that way”) from the Japanese Arisaka Type 99 paratroop folder. No, a wood stock with a barn-door hinge and hook is not a good idea.
As far as the M16A2 and M4 go, A2 should have been an SR25 built in 7.62x51mm specifically for Camp Perry. The M4 was and is basically a Colt Sporter Lightweight with an improved barrel and the 609 stock.
Of the two, the M4 comes nearer to being a reasonable infantry IW, but it still needs improvement. Yes, a 16″, 1:9 twist barrel like the typical “civilian” AR15 of today. The 609 stock should be an option; a lot of shooters in and out of uniform just don’t like the friggin’ thing. (Myself included.)
Some of the newer types of commercial AR15 retracting stock, like the EX Performance or the NexGen, are considerably better-designed than the old 609 pattern and eliminate most of its drawbacks. And they actually have rubber buttpads.
cheers
eon
Have you seen a G3 collapsible stock ? tiny poorly shaped steel buttplate , designed by a sadist .
Have you fired an HK91 with that stock?
I have. Once.
That was enough.
clear ether
eon
I like the side folding stock that comes on the S. Korean AR 100, (semi auto K2). Locks up solid with very little movement.
Launching rifle grenades off of an underfolding M70AB2 is an unpleasant experience. The M 59/66 is a much nicer platform for the purpose.