In December 1944, the Haenel company received permission to produce a simplified version of the StG-44 Sturmgewehr. The idea was to keep the mechanical system and controls as similar as possible to the design in use, but simplify the design to reduce the cost and time of production. The design was never completed, and this is the only known surviving prototype. It was most likely captured by American forces when they occupied the Haenel factory in April 1945, although that is not documented. It is a pretty impressive adaptation of the StG design; far simpler to manufacture than the original design. Would it have worked? We don’t know for sure as there are no known German or American test reports, but it certainly seems viable to me.
Thanks to the Springfield Armory National Historic Site for giving me access to this truly unique specimen form their reference collection to film for you! Don’t miss the chance to visit the museum there if you have a day free in Springfield, Massachusetts:
https://www.nps.gov/spar/index.htm
Interesting…
I’m going to watch a second time to look for clues about how headspace and case head protrusion were controlled.
I’m guessing by the same means that FN used for the very similar tilting bolt locking set up in the FAL;
With different thickness washers or shims when fitting the barrel
whatever method was used, there does seem to be a lot of potential for tolerance stacking with having the barrel attached to the upper receiver and the locking surface attached to the hinged lower.
My memory is that they did it with a selection of locking block wedges in the receiver of different thicknesses. My source for this is an old InRangeTV session where Ian and Karl went over an StG with the fellow from Faxon barrels that was trying to revive the design. Their insights into the engineering (many educated guesses) were fascinating. Since this was a throw-away gun in every sense, kind of a German Sten or Grease Gun, but of course German so complicated, if they got 5,000 rounds out of a locking block before headspacing failed I suppose they’d be satisfied. That working examples were seen in Libya this century testify that even the cheapest German item was overbuilt.
“(…)kind of a German Sten(…)”
Interestingly there existed design which is even more close to that, than presented specimen. Namely Wimmersperg’s attempt at breeding STEN with Kurzpatrone, see 1st image from top https://imfdb.org/wiki/Wimmersperg_Spz
This wimmersperg BS never seemed serious to me, it existed only in 1-2 drawings, iirc
I fail to see how said design is related to British Standards.
“(…)existed only in 1-2 drawings(…)”
Drawing it is what is known currently. It is not ultimate evidence about seriousness or lack thereof, as execution in metal might be simply prevented by tide of war.
A lot of appreciable simplifications. Not often you see a pair of hex nuts in a firearm.
You can see that probably to reach high round counts was not the primary concern of the designers.
One thing that bothers me from AK perspective, its piston rod is intentionally made loose. This here with 2 nuts if its very solid and fixed, it could lead to less reliability.
“(…)suspect someone around the arsenal probably did some shooting with it at some point(…)”
If it was so there should remain some residue in barrel. I presume that could be determined in properly equipped lab, but I am not sure if it could be done without damaging specimen itself.
“(…)recoil spring has been moved to the top of the receiver(…)”
This seems as opposite to evolution of some other full-auto-capable weapon where spring was moved away from barrel to avoid problems related with exposure to heat (c.f. DP vs DPM)
“(…)bolt is now a square profile bolt instead of being basically a round profile bolt.(…)”
How does it effects mass of said element? If there is substantial difference how does it changed Rate-of-Fire and stability whilst fired full-auto?
Maybe Ian needs to start carrying a borescope to check for evidence that these things have been teat-fired. All of the original techs who would have done so are dead now, and I’d be shocked if any of the records are digitized yet.
I can’t see how the simple fact it has or has not been fired is a burning issue. An actual test report would be of interest. It’s like those gun vids where Terence Tactikuhl blades away with his gat du jour but never shows us the target afterwards. Shooting sans results is just noise.
I like it, because I like simple things. This is as if Luty had designed an assault rifle. I mean that as a compliment.
That is an apt description. I agree!
You can find what documentation there is available in the Collector’s Grade Sturmgewehr volume by Hans-Dieter Handrich, starting on page 310. One illustration, about a half-page or so of text.
It’d be my guess that this project was someone’s “Keep my ass off the Eastern Front…” effort, more than anything else. There’s some potential here, but this is basically a very simplistic, almost disposable design that would have been treated about like the Sten MkI in actual practice. I have no idea what it would have looked like after a few thousand rounds and some actual field abuse, but I wager that the heat treatment of the carrier and bolt assemblies would have led to some critical failures unless it was gotten juuuuuuuust right, and that fact would probably have meant massive production problems, especially given the intermittent nature of German electricity for the induction ovens that did the heat treatment. One glitch in the electrical grid, and bye-bye to however many parts you had in the oven…
Sometimes, I suspect, these “simplistic” designs aren’t actually any easier to produce, and about all you’re really doing is redistributing the production bottlenecks. Sometimes, that’s a good idea. Sometimes, that’s a disaster. No idea how this one would have worked, but…
It does have that look of ingenuity I associate with the German approach to engineering. I am, however, going to question why the hell they’d try to extrapolate an operating mechanism designed for machined-steel over to something like this; I think a wiser approach would have been to abandon that tilt-lock concept entirely, and gone to something else. Tilt-locking usually means you are not going to be able to just lock up on the bolt extension the way you can with a rotary bolt or roller-lock/delay, and that’s what you really need in a simplistic stamped design: The minimum possible effort in material and machining for the locking system.
“(…)roller-lock/delay, and that’s what you really need in a simplistic stamped(…)”
This is how Gerät 06 (another alternative to get cheaper weapon for Kurzpatrone) worked https://modernfirearms.net/en/assault-rifles/germany-assault-rifles/stg-45m-eng/
but after testing they found it was found locking was not strictly necessary and thus Gerät 06H was crafted, which was delayed-blow-back rather than gas-operated.
The STG-45m is also interesting because it allows to make some calculation on the needed bolt and carrier weight in a roller delayed blowback action in respect to a pure blowback action.
Also weight is a serious concern here. Already the STG44 was an heavy weapon for what it fired. Several of those modificatios further enhances weight.
Looks like a concept based on available manufacturing technology. Großfuß was the MG-42 guy, with a stamped sheetmetal background. Hence, no U.S. style investment castings, no forgings, sheetmetalwork except just milled parts made from steel bar.
Similar approach, see TRW low maintenance rifle. Best regards, the freihandschütze.
Thanks for the points, freihandschútze. I came here to mention the Großfuß/Horn prototype in comparison to the Haenel version presented here:
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/stg-45-horn-prototypes/
Also: https://www.forgottenweapons.com/last-ditch-innovation-video/
I think the early 1970s TRW low maintenance rifle concept in relation to this is also spot on (spot-welded on… pun…?)
I would also urge comparisons of this Haenel prototype Vollig vereinfacht with the British BESAL LMG prototypes as well.
Tell ya what: I can’t be the only person hoping for a Headstamp publishing coffee-table book on all of the WWII prototype simplified standard “last ditch” weapons, now can I?
USSR: the 1942 Mosin-Nagant 1891/30 rifles, the various sundry SMGs like the Korovin 1941 and Sudaev PPS, the RG-42 Korushunov hand grenade, and much else besides…
Japan: the Type 99 simplifications and modifications, various rocket weapons, the Type 100 Mk.II SMG, repurposed aircraft weapons, etc.
UK: The Sten is well-worn ground, but then there’s the simplified rifle, Types 1 & 2, and the BESAL along with some other Home Guard/ army weapons too… Northover projector, Smith gun, etc.
Germany: All of the various simplified weapons, Sten-gun knock-offs, Volksgewehre, und so weiter…
Possibly some other nations as well.
“(…)Japan: the Type 99 simplifications and modifications, various rocket weapons, the Type 100 Mk.II SMG, repurposed aircraft weapons, etc.(…)”
Do not forgot about Kokumin Kan’i Kenjū https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/National_Defence_Pistol
About as sophisticated as the double-barrel zip-gun used to assassinate the former PM Shinzo Abe, or, for that matter, the flintlock loaded with scrap metal of regicide Jakob Johan Anckarström at the masked ball in Stockholm 16 Mar. 1792, no?
Ze Germans categorically rejected any single-shot rifle for consideration in their various desperate schemes to arm the Volkssturm Nazi party militia in their national suicide pact. One wonders if a rolling block might be contrived using, um, well, stampings I suppose?
Just as the StG45 (H) seen here with its first failure point revealed: the pistol grip and trigger guard, me things?–the use of pre-existing components like the butt stock and the box magazines of the StG44, so too the various VG-1 and VG-2 made use of the 10-rd. Karabiner 43 magazines… And in many instances, the repurposed 7.92x57mm barrels of aircraft machine guns rendered obsolete by the rapidity of aircraft development during the war of military Fordism.
That reciprocating stamped sheet metal bolt-carrier handle and the race-way between the “upper” and the “lower” boxy receiver components reminds me a bit of the more radical Soviet “space magic” R&D prototype bakelite bullpup of German A. Korobov ca. 1964, the TKB-022PM:
https://modernfirearms.net/en/assault-rifles/russia-assault-rifles/korobov-tkb-022-eng/
Obviously, the actual operating systems and layout were completely different, as well as the materials used.
Supposedly the only Großfuß or Horn retarded blow-back rifles went to the USSR, where they appear to have exerted no detectable influence on any gun design.
Dave:
I like your idea. I have always been interested in “last ditch” or simplified weapons, so I would love that book to be published one day.
Played around with a little gedankenspiel that’s been percolating in the back of my mind: We’ve seen all sorts of mechanisms to lock the bolt, but what is the bare minimum of “locking” and what is the simplest and most economic way to achieve that locking?
Everything to date seems to fixate on a barrel screwed into some sort of receiver or barrel extension, which makes for at least some machining being devoted to an extraneous part, the extension or receiver.
How about something that doesn’t require that? At all? Ever examined how a quick-disconnect for an air hose works?
Picture the barrel as the male end of one of those arrangements; that’s all there is to it, the barrel. The locking mechanism goes around and locks into the barrel itself, using either ball bearings or maybe lugged levers that go in and are then secured by a carrier sleeve coming over them and locking them into the recesses milled into the chamber area.
Either way, you’ve just reduced your machined parts by at least one fairly large chunk, the receiver or barrel extension.
I can’t think of a single instance of a design like this that I’ve ever seen; anyone got anything like that that they can cite? Think of it as an “externally locked system” that just locks up on the barrel itself, nothing else. You could have the sliding carrier lock undone by gas or recoil energy, your choice…
Only real precision parts would be the barrel and the bolt lockup parts.
Something like this https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81kCVRL2F5L.jpg
Probably better using two or three roller bearings instead of three ball bearings, to have more locking surface.
It seems like a good idea, with some caveat.
The first one. In a bolt and carrier assembly, the recoil spring pushes the carrier, but in this kind of quick release systems, you don’t push the retaining ring. For this system to lock, something has to keep the carrier retracted until the final locking (IE a cam system with a final rotation of the bolt/ring, to push the retaining ring forward and close the action). That’s a complication, in a system that should be simple.
The second. The assembly is fairly large (it must be way larger than the cartridge), but it still has to push a cartridge out of a magazine/belt and into the chamber. It’s not easy to control that feed.
What if we revert the system? The plug / male end is the bolt, and the retaining ring is kept around the barrel. it can be easily made so that the ring has to move towards the buttstock to unlock (in the picture above, the arrow for releasing would be reverted), so that the same short-stroke gas piston impulse unlocks the bolt and pushes it back to cycle the action.
The barrel extension seems like an “extraneous part”, but it’s actually a cost-saving measure (easier to machine and easier to headspace, also allows a smaller blank). The AR’s seems exceedingly complex, but it also costs about $18.
The air hose QD is cheap because it’s using materials with strengths in the tens of thousands of PSI to hold low-100s PSI. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a semiauto like that, but firearms applications do exist (as extraordinarily expensive Euro straight-pull bolt actions). A selfloader is a straight-pull bolt gun plus a gas system, so it isn’t getting any cheaper.
When dealing with firearm pressures, it needs to be extraordinarily strong, because the locking surfaces are small arcs along the balls in the barrel or extension, and rings around the balls in the bolt head (infinitesimally small contact area). It could be relatively simple if the ball recesses were simple through-holes, but then the balls would just fall out. Each needs to be slightly smaller (on the outside) to prevent that and allow the ball the exact same protrusion as all the others to contact the locking recess, and those tiny constrictions somehow need to be exceptionally well heat-treated while holding those tolerances. I am curious about how ~99% of objects are manufactured, but thinking about building things like this makes my head hurt.
What I’m thinking is putting the locking surfaces on the outside of the chamber area, and then using those surfaces to interface with something like flapper/finger arrangements that are locked in place by a sliding sleeve/carrier affair until either gas pressure or recoil drives the sleeve/carrier back far enough to allow for unlocking…
I think you’d have to account for some sort of controlled-feed arrangement that would prevent the cartridge from going into the area around the barrel/chamber end, in order to reduce the potential for jamming.
Think of it as an inside-out and reversed flapper lock or roller-lock, with the intent to reduce the number of machined parts down to just the barrel and the bolt.
Headspace could be adapted by either machining the barrel or the bolt face, as needed.
I can almost visualize how the whole thing would work. I think I’d have to do an actual direct-impingement gas system, in order to eject without having to worry about a gas piston being in the way…
Kirk,
Ah, OK. The Stribog A3 (and the new Springfield Kuna) use a simple, roller-based version of that (roller in a divot on top of the barrel). Unfortunately, both get the mass-distribution of the BCG backwards.
I can picture something kind of like an Uzi or MAC, with the locking in the “telescoped” section of the bolt away from the feed tab / breechface.
@ Kirk
As said, the Stribog A3 and the Springfield Kuna are conceptualy pretty close. It takes little to turn roller delayed to roller locked, even if, with more serious cartridges, you would need at least two symmetrical rollers.
BUT, it has the same problem than “why not cut the locking surfaces external to the barrel/barrel-extension than internal to it”.
Because the bolt becomes VERY large that way.
So, again, instead of having all that structure reciprocating with the bolt, why not have the bolt as the plug (at this point would be a very simple one-piece bolt) and the locking mechanism (roller or flapper) permanently attached to the barrel?
I think I’ve seen a Blaser straight pull bolt action that looked a bit like a hydraulic quick coupling.
in the setting of a gun, you are looking at order of magnitude higher pressure and at least two orders of magnitude more cycles of lock and unlock
The Blaser bolt works more like an expansion wall plug. It’s not a simplification. It’s quite complicate infact. But, for a straight pull, it’s also very short, and the radial lock makes for good accuracy.
A short and simple design is the Breda PG “rising lock” bolt https://youtu.be/0utf9Wu–W8?t=634
It also doesn’t have the problems of the tilting locks, because the locking surface is frontal, and it doesn’t require complicate internal cutting of the barrel extension, but only a passing hole ( https://smallarmsreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/3701_6-Breda-PG-Costa-Rica-Julias-without-dustcover-1024×267.jpg ).
Not by chance, the Czech sa81 KRASA, whose main goal was to be short, used a modification of the same system. https://youtu.be/8fz1mvpqF_I?t=523
I like the cheaper/smarter “Well… For it’s role.” bits… Desperate like. Although I suppose at range the Russians might have reported that strange new double barreled machine guns have appeared, perhaps causing some consternation… Until they found one, had a giggle, and invaded Berlin.
Maybe it could, work… In similar manner to roller delay, in that pressure on the bolt face would in this case make it want to “Un-tilt” if it could. So to faciltate this, er… Make a new similarly (Rudimental) hook, so modify the bolt to be as “Shit as the carrier for want of a better word” The bolt & carrier now stay together; so the carrier doesn’t pick the bolt up, now. What happens is the arrangement just permits some give, give forward… Gas hits the piston, the piston is in the tilty down position locked… Bullet leaves, gas de-pressure allows gas piston to vent forwards into barrel I.e. Through it’s port, pressure on bolt forces it up, which via new arrangement pushes piston forward towards said port; allowing for tilt. Similar in principle to that other last ditch nazi gas delay idea (Steyr aug type trigger guard one) just wondering if this might be a better layout, might not be 10 min thinking and I have drunk 3 pints after being awake since 4am… Still, I think I know what I mean. Could have major flaws, should scribble it first really…
Suppose the plus side of that compared to the original plug thing, on the face of it; your getting a bit more sort of mechanical delay “Cheaply” worth it, if more delaying, eh – In the optimum manner, type thing.
Tilty, give… So a hook thing, that permits the “Shit” bolt to tilt, and the “Shit” carrier to move forward; while permitting them to travel together via being attached… Wee movements; tilty tilt, uppity-forward. Gas keeps tilt, until no gas then un, un’tilt. Gas delay, put incorporates some friction/mass/movement to aid… Depends how cheap it was vs if it worked at all. Can see that actually though… Bolt tilted, carrier thus “back” it’s wee bit… BANG!! Carrier forced back via gas so keeping tilty’ness I.e bolt delay – Less gas; case pressing against tilty’ness, overcomes it via pushing gas piston forward – It moves forward as gas can now vent into/out barrel.
Aye, it is the gas plug design in essence; so, it is just a case of if this is a better “Employment of it” might be… Actually.
Might not be. If it was, well that manufacturing puts hi-point to shame, knock some out in 12 gauge those ak mags; U.S market – Cletus the slack jawed yokel 199.89 bux. “Limted warranty”
Use the Steyr aug trigger guard thing @ 199.89 aye; sales.
Meh, few sribbles on the back of a fag packet and we’d nail that I think. Rounds are expensive, we should help Cletus hit his turkey… Cheap gun, empty the fecker. Dinner.
“(…)packet(…)”
Now I am completely confused, please explain clearly how your proposal is related to Fairchild C-82.
“(…)might have reported that strange new double barreled machine guns have appeared, perhaps causing some consternation(…)”
Unlikely, observe that Read Army first encountered what they think was named MK belash 42 (H) https://www.tankarchives.com/2018/02/sturmgewehr-intel.html which more correctly is Maschinenkarabiner 1942 https://modernfirearms.net/en/assault-rifles/germany-assault-rifles/mkb-42h-42w-42g-eng/ and does have gas tube of similar length to barrel.
Fair point.
Does have a sort of warhammer space marine destressed look to it, two barrels if it was painted like… Enlarged 4 bore or whatever. I think, thinking back 20 years… 30… Ha…
And thats right in regards sales, an all. 4,500 bux for 1 or sell 4,500. Schnell.
Live in Chicgago? Buy two, and get two barrel clips FREE! To fix two Elaborator 12 g’s together; geese etc – 399.89. Mofo’s.
Tripod sold seperately… Free though, free! What you do want twin elaborator 12,’s for home defence for under 500 bux?
All I want out of life is to live in Montana with a Kentucky rifle.
And a Gatling gun… Modern world, he he.
Montana has become a refugee center for Californians carrying their political viruses. Mexican drug gangs are in towns as small as Townsend there. There is no place for brave American gunowners to run and continue hiding their headsup their asses. The crunch came; the militia cut and run. End of story.
Bump fire gast gun tripod? Same price; might be some delay – Have to speak to some American lawyers. Aye it is one pull of the trigger, aye; but it might be more complicated. Fun though, doubtless – Wild Haggis hunting, or such. Need time to apply for Belarussian passport.
@PDB
there is a tilting bolt delayed blowback system (there are probably several)
probably the most relevant one here is the one used by the Benelli B76 9mm pistol.
another variation on the theme is the Pedersen designed Remington pistol (can’t remember it’s number) that Remington tried to resurrect back in the mid 2000s
the problem with those systems was controlling the small distance of free travel necessary before the bolt contacted the locking shoulders
if the free travel is too short, the gun won’t cycle
if it is too long, it starts to bulge and pop case heads
because the locking surfaces are taking a dynamic impact, rather than a pseudo static loading, they need to be larger and stronger than an actual locked breech, to prevent them from becoming distorted, and lengthening that gap and the free travel…
put simply
furgerrubootit
you may as well make a proper locked breech with a gas system to operate it.
Remington model 51 pistol
us pat 1,348,733
To keep thing clear:
Remington Model 51 is original Pedersen design which was available in 7,65 mm Browning and 9×17 mm Kurz.
Remington R51 is modern design in 9×19 mm and it become available at market in 2010s NOT 2000s.
Benelli B76 pistol us patent 3,893,369
IMO infinitely preferable to anything made by Remington
At the time, one of the advertised features of the Benelli B76 was that it could handle very hot loads.
I gather that the Benellis were very good pistols. properly designed and proportioned for their intended purposes.
but eclipse the flood of cheaper high capacity wonder nines that started to come onto the market at the same time and just after the 76.
I suppose that the Benellis could claim a barrel that was rigidly fixed, and perhapshigher potential intrinsic accuracy than a browningtilting barrel or a walther beretta styleof locking, but beyond that, I’m not sure that the Benelli system offered anything that couldn’t be matched by a Browning tilting barrel (locked breech) wonder nine.
but were eclipsed by the flood of high capacity wonder nines
The “problems” with the B76 were the single stack magazine, and the complex field strip, that prevented any military sale (and related notoriety).
But, as I said, the ads of the time pointed to the ability of the gun to handle very hot loads.
It has also to be noted that the weapon was really quite simple to make. All stamped steel and milled parts with simple straight cuts.
It was well suited for a mass-production that really never came.
“(…)preferable to anything made by Remington”
According to https://gundigest.com/gun-reviews/in-depth-test-remington-r51-gen-2-review Remington acknowledged that R51 they sell had problems and thus offered irritated users to swap R51 for 1911 R1 at not cost or for dollars spent, but was then able to nix issues of R51.
Reising
@ Mike
you are right, I wasn’t thinking about the Reising being a tilting bolt delayed blowback, but it is.
They f’d up some of the peripherals / execution, but the core system seemed fundamentally sound.
However, as for tilting bolt delayed blowback systems, arguably more relevant than the B76, is the one of the Bernardelli Victor shotgun (manufactured since 1949 well into the ’60s).
https://immagini.armiusate.it/4502193.jpg
It had ben the third semiauto shotgun manufactured in italy (after the Cosmi and the Franchi 48, that’s a Browning long recoil system).
The Bernardelli Victor uses what’s practically a SVT40 action, with all the gas part removed, and the locking surfaces cut at an angle so to not lock the action completly (patent US2622359A by Baldassarre Belleri) the chamber is also fluted.
In the first iteration, you had to change recoil spring between low and high brass cartridges. In the second version, even that was no more necessary.
Furgerrubootit way forward…
Anyway I still can see that being adapted to using gas delay… If you was skint.
It’s not a Pedersen, gas pushes the piston to delay opening; opening happens when pressure against the bolt from the case can overcome. The Pederson, That new R51… Tut… Not the same explain, he he. (I will have a think about it, it isn’t.)
Ok pressure on the bolt face – Back – bolt impacts slide thus, so delaying that. Ok… Right, think thats what you mean… So – Gas hits gas piston, piston is attached to tilting bolt “Pushing back, thus down” Pressure on case tries to push this up thus forward… Not a pederson, pederson is mass.
Not sure if I am making myself clear, the idea is gas prevents 1st the bolt opening then it is sort of pederson. But gas… 1st. Might not work, but I think that is an important point.
The forward part of tilting bolt pushing up thus “forward” gas delay, but only via bullet via being in barrel still… Otherwise no. However… All this is quick, I can still see it helping, then you have the normal functioning of the locking ledge moving up, pushing the piston forward.
Probably my own fault, waffled to much without details “Mind you it made sense to me, when I waffled it out; then my brain said details?” In my defence. Ok, so bolt, and carrier provide mass… BANG!!! Pressure hits bolt face, now… Gas then enters port in the forward usual position of the barrel… Hits piston, piston is attached to bolt via the carrier. The bolt is tilted locked, upon BANG!!! Gas pushes piston back in this poistion (The operating system is gas delay, with perhaps some mechanical aid to delay via the layout; over the Nazi last ditch simple gas plug version – If you saw that, it has a steyr aug triggee guard type arrangement…
Right… Bolt tilted down “Locked” (This design doesn’t pick the bolt up via a hook, the carrier/piston are attached to the bolt, they just permit said usual movements – Which was it’s point of interest to me, it discarded the need to pick up the bolt) Trying to think of tge best way to explain… “Accepting I haven’t been clear, but adamant, not a pederson.” A Z backwards… Force from the top impacts the bottom, for the bottom to move back the top must go forward.
“(…)pederson(…)”
Unless intentional show of disdain: Pedersen.
If the mass of the bolt behind the cartridge attached to the carrier and thus piston can be overcome, before gas hits the front of the piston it won’t work. I an saying… We want it to work thus, adjust. If it can’t be done… But if it can; we get a more reliable gas delay mech than ze Nazi plug potentially. Progress.
Attached how, the piston/carrier and bolt I don’t know! Roll the hook on the carrier to an oval, and pin it through a corresponding loop on the new “Shit rolled” bolt have you not got a pencil. The movement, tilty down – push back – piston. Tilty up – push forward piston. Allowing both to move back/forward empty – load eh, chop chop thinking caps on angry Russians.
The key to this is that previous Nazi Steyr Aug trigger guard one, if you thought “Well it might work” well, I am saying what I have waffled about, might work better via having gas delay combined with mechanical disadavantage.
If not I.e. Said mass doesn’t with tilt hold until gas hits piston “C’mon it isn’t outrageous, quick, quick timings.” Modify… Extend/change return spring to pass though carrier as appropriate, above it eh… Lug with spring behind for action via corresponding bolt – Part, to interact. Forward of which is another spring around the extended guide rod/gas piston; to imteact with carrier I.e. Pushinf it back when it wants to move forward. I hope this isn’t wrong as this is the quickest one I have ever suggested, almost as if I knew that was what to do.
Aye but… Well perhaps… Although they were running short of “Stuff” for “Proper” things. We all might be, again… Nations. Who knows – With the way it is going. Better than a pike, anyway. Usually, albeit not always… Perhaps.
Maybe the pistol grip was meant to be welded through that thin slot ?
and after that, wooden sides added (looking like whats in, iirc, pps43)
https://youtu.be/C8TGpW04hjg?si=9tOoTwbMg0ohMdcm