Check out Headstamp Publishing’s extensive catalog of excellent books:
https://www.headstamppublishing.com/home-forgotten
When the Luftwaffe was looking for its new universal paratrooper rifle, six different German arms companies were asked to submit proposals. Only two actually did; Krieghoff and Rheinmetall. Krieghoff designed this very interesting system, clearly optimized to reduce weight and length as required by the design brief. It uses a tiny vertically traveling locking block and an unusual gas trap system combined with an under-barrel piston. The total number made is unknown, but both fixed- and folding-stock models were produced (the German museum at Koblenz has a fixed-stock example on display). This particular example appears to have been tested after the war by engineers at Springfield Armory by drilling a hole in the gas tube to measure pressure while it cycled.
Thanks to the Springfield Armory National Historic Site for giving me access to this rare prototype from 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
“(…)poor folding stock design in general.
The latch here is extremely flimsy. Uh
it’s very, very wobbly(…)”
That is last thing one would expect from Krieghoff Waffenfabrik, considering that in 1900 Ludwig Krieghoff found that Die Läufe schießen, der Schaft trifft!
Due to shape of track visible at 13:52 I suspect this development is related to other Krieghoff project namely Maschinengewehr eine Million Punkte
https://www.airwar.ru/weapon/guns/mg301.html
where movement of bolt is described as дугообразной (which I do not even dare to translate). In 1938 Krieghoff was bragging than theirs 20 mm autocannon can fire 1000 rounds per minute with muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s, hence number in name. Advantage of used system was short travel, hence lower velocity of moving parts required to attain given Rate-of-Fire. Krieghoff designed failed to meet given figures, nonetheless it managed to spawn successfully weapons:
MG 213 which was finished by Mauser Werke
30mm PLdvK vz. 53/59
MG 213 that evolved into the DEFA and ADEN cannons, still in service.
sidenote on Springfield armory– double check their hours of operation before you plan your trip!
Wednesday through Sunday from 9:30 AM to 4:00 PM
Hey, that thing looks like the gun I drew as a 5 year old kid 🙂 Especially the buttstock.
The overall impression is that this started out as a design for a simplified flexible MG for bombers like the Ju88 or Do17. Then when the Fallschirmjager wanted an automatic rifle-cum-SAW, somebody in Krieghoff’s design department went Rube Goldberg. Especially with that “shoulder stock”, which of course would have been both unnecessary and a PITA on a flexible aircraft gun in a ball mount.
The single-stack feed likely began as a drum-feed setup, similar to MG15. The cocking system is as Ian said pretty much straight from MG15.
Other than that, it appears to be a simplified “Dreyse” MG13, probably initially designed as a cheaper and easier to make replacement for MG15 in bombers. It probably originally had a “saddle” drum magazine, which would explain its single-feed aperture.
The “optical sight plate” on top probably covers not only the trademark but also the location where the original top cover was removed and replaced by a fixed cover.
The vertically-moving locking block came more-or-less straight from the MG13, with the muzzle gas-booster assembly also being from that design. Which of course also led to MG34 and MG42.
The one anomaly here is the gas-operated system, when pretty much every other MG in its lineage was recoil-operated. The best guess is that it was because the Luftwaffe RfP specified gas operation.
In short, Krieghoff dusted off an aircraft flexible MG design and tried to sell it to the Luftwaffe as an “automatic rifle”. The Luftwaffe did some fairly dumb things, but even they weren’t stupid enough to fall for that one.
clear ether
eon
I am forced to agree with you, eon, because I see the same things when I look at this weapon. Which I’ve only ever heard vaguely described as an also-ran for the FG42 competition.
You rather get the impression that it was kludged together just so they could say that there had been such a competition to get to the FG42.
The thing is, if you look at what the “Paras” were exercised about after their experience in Crete (which was what started the whole tangled mess) what they were really saying wasn’t “We need an automatic rifle” but “we need a lighter LMG”.
One that at least one or two men in the “stick” could jump with and land shooting, while the actual two-man MG team was waiting for the MG34 and its tripod to come down in the next drop canister.
For that, something like a lightened MG13 actually would have made more sense than FG42 did.
Or even something closer to the American Johnson M1941 LMG, with its detachable barrel. That bit was to get it into a canvas carrier so the gunner could drop with it on his harness. Apparently, the idea of supplying spare barrels to allow a measure of sustained fire with it never occurred to either Melvin Johnson or the Marine Corps.
In short, nobody really knew what a light machine gun should actually be like back then.
A lot of the people making decisions about that sort of thing still don’t, today.
cheers
eon
The Johnson LMG was very close. It only needed a quicker way to change the barrel without touching it, a better recoil mitigation system and a vertical double stack magazine.
It’s interesting to note that the postwar Israeli Dror LMG, based on the Johnson M1941, had exactly those modifications. In fact, the Model 2 version in 7.9x57mm used BAR magazines.
cheers
eon
It gets even worse when you contemplate how poorly they understand “how to use” the damn things, as well.
Modern US military machinegun doctrine is laughable, incomplete, and nearly delusional. Which is exactly how the brass, none of whom know how to use a machinegun properly in the first place, talked themselves into that whole “overmatch” fallacy in order to create the NGSW program that has basically given us “M-14/7.62 NATO Redux”. With the added additional benefit of being incredibly expensive, destructive of barrels, and entirely unnecessary.
Coupled with the recent spate of SIG 320 problems across the Defense Department, I have a suspicion that there are likely some investigations that Mr. Hegseth needs to initiate, into just exactly how the hell the whole thing got going, and how SIG got their crap selected.
Here’s a news flash for you: The whole idea of the machinegun is not to “provide support” to the infantry; it is, instead, to serve as the primary means of delivering small arms fire by the infantry formation, much as the old-school “March in Linear Formation and Shoot in Volley” tactics used the individual musket shooter as part of a collective organic firepower tool. As such, you’ve basically got yourself a battalion or two worth of infantry (as understood by 19th Century leaders…) under your control as a machinegun team leader. As such, you need to be able to understand that fact, and use the firepower accordingly. Using it to basically blast your way onto objectives “supporting” frontal assault attacks is just plain stupid… But, that’s what we mostly do. That, and use the machinegun as defensive fires only. Which, again, is stupid; you can do so much more with a proper gun, a proper team, and the necessary supporting tools like good all-terrain tripods and rangefinding gear. Anyone telling you that the US military has its act together with regards to small arms is delusional, much as they are when they say that the US military has its act together with regards to drone operations.
In order to be able to use a machinegun properly, you have to integrate command and control of the weapon with target identification and designation; you cannot possibly do that effectively out to range from a bipod-only weapon. There’s no possible way to do what you can do off a tripod with a trained gunner and observer, where the observer can have the gunner fire a ranging burst, and then correct fires off the impacts via the mil reticle in his binoculars for the second burst. Off a bipod, such things become a comedy of errors; you can’t really even describe things in clear enough terms: “A little more to the left and a skosh up…”, when the gunner isn’t really able to even identify the fall of shot due to the movement of his weapon and the sights. You can only really correct fires at range (appropriate to MG fires) if you’re on a locked-down tripod and you can tell the gunner something concrete about what he needs to correct in order to hit his targets.
It’s about like trying to hit things with your mortar, when you screwed up and left the bipod for it back in the patrol base. There’s nothing objective and consistent to use when you’re adjusting fires; they never try to do the “commando mortar” thing in US service, so why the hell are the tripods designed to be useless in dynamic tactical situations, and rarely taken out on patrol in the first place…?
The fact that the M250 MG has no improved tripod to accompany it just clarifies how badly the “authorities” in the US military understand the machinegun and its uses.
Based on that fact alone, I’d shitcan the entire NGSW project right now, because that’s a leading indicator that they just don’t get what is going on in modern combat. They see the M250 as some sort of magic bullet hose that will ballistically solve all their tactical problems, when the reality is that it’s not going to do a damn thing to improve the situation: Private Jones is going to be firing that ultra-cool uber-MG off the same shoulder that he used to fire the M240 and M249 off of, and it’s going to have the same tactical lack of effect due to oversize beaten zones and lack of a way for leadership to direct fires effectively.
You may be able to hit targets at long range from a bipod, but you’re going to expend exponentially more ammunition trying to achieve the effect you could have managed far more economically by firing off a tripod with someone who knows what they’re doing directing affairs.
If they were really creating a genuine Next Generation Squad Weapon, odds are that it would be mounted on a robot controlled by a single soldier via his IPhone. Using GPS and probably Google Earth to pick the target(s).
The mortar as we’ve known it is a dead duck. By the time an 11-Charlie pair has it set up and ready to fire, some Clever Hans on the other side has dropped an explosive-laden drone on their heads. Mortars in the future are going to be purely AFV-mounted, likely on autonomous vehicles, under armor, automatic loading, and able to shift fire and more importantly shift position much faster than two guys on foot could ever do it. Those two guys on foot are better employed with something like AT4/M136A1CS or whatever they’re calling it this week.
As for the Sig P320/M17/M19/whatever, when your great innovation is a kludged-up combination of a 9mm polymer-framed “Wunderneun” and the searage of the Roth-Steyr M1907 “cavalry pistol” which everybody loathed a century ago (Because it had a nasty habit of- surprise!- AD’ing when nobody touched the trigger), it’s pretty obvious that the whole purpose of the exercise was so Ordnance could claim that “See, it’s a completely new thing, all our idea, and it’s not a Glock or a 1911”.
I honestly think most personnel who “need” a sidearm would be better off with a double-action revolver. Give them one with an 8-shot cylinder and if it has to be a 9mm NATO, use eight-shot “full-moon clips”.
Maybe even make it concealed-hammer, trigger-cocking only, and a top-break. Hey, the latter worked just fine for Webley & Scott for decades.
As for “high capacity”, I still maintain that if it takes more than two or three rounds to do the job, you should have been using a rifle to start with.
cheers
eon
“(…)genuine Next Generation Squad Weapon, odds are that it would be mounted on a robot controlled by a single soldier(…)Using(…)Google Earth to pick the target(s).(…)”
If you need system with such traits then use ShaBlya https://thedefender.media/en/2025/06/shablya-grenade-launcher-codified/
…enabling fire via direct or indirect guidance, as well as by coordinates from “concealed positions”…
…can be deployed on…UGV…
…can be controlled by a crew of 1–2 people…
…operator can add targets on a digital map, and the system will memorise them, performing automatic targeting when switching between targets…
…operated using a control panel and monitor, enabling remote combat operations…
@ eon
One of the few things a handgun can do on the battlefield (especially an urban one) is covering fire, IE when you ran to take a real weapon. And that can easily require more than 6 rounds. From that point of view, 5.7X28mm FN may be a good idea.
Also, revolvers are not that reliable. To jam a revolver is quite easy (it may only take a short trigger reset, a quite easy mistake firing in haste) and, while semiauto jams, 99% of the times, only require tap and rack to clear, revolver jams typically require an armorer.
As for the operating system, 9mm can be fired by a blowback pistol, but not without weight disadvantages. I wonder if the ideal one would be a gas delayed blowback, like the Walther CCP. The only real downside of gas delayed blowback is heat management, but let’s get real. How many times a handgun had rapid fired more than a pair of magazines in battle in the last 40 years?
@eon & Daweo,
I’ve been making the case for the semi-autonomous MG platform since the days when I realized that the US military would rather spend billions on gadgetry than training and “proficiencizing” the actual soldiers. Added benefits of being able to deliver fires without exposing the troops to return fire are there, so it’d be best to make a virtue out of necessity.
That Ukrainian system is about what I’d shoot for; hybrid diesel/electric drive train, able to also charge batteries for the squads, and perform some autonomous sentry operations through sensor packages linked to AI. Do it right, and you’d be able to do cool things like build the platforms to look like the Husqvarna range of demolition robots ( https://www.husqvarnaconstruction.com/us/demolition-equipment/dxr145/ ) and use them in multiple ways that even I can’t come up with, but I would fully expect the troops to be able to do. Have a small pack of these things trundling along with the small tactical units, inclusive of systems designed to do CIWS air defense, and you’ve got the makings of a mid- to late-21st Century tactical team.
I get a little aroused, as a former machinegunner, thinking about being able to sub out the demolition hammer on one of those Husqvarna systems with an MG package, and use it to go peeking around corners and over walls in urban combat, while other systems still set up for engineering work are demolishing defenses and taking down obstacles.
I honestly don’t know why the US military isn’t buying these things up and even just playing with them, to explore the possibilities. They absolutely should be, and if they don’t…? Just like with drones and Ukraine, someone will be.
The “combat bot” systems should be full-range capable; hard-wired controls, radio- and laser-remote operation, and autonomous in the same package. Ideally, you’d have something you could send into the tunnels and cave complexes of Afghanistan and use in urban scenarios, even urban rescue operations after natural or man-made disasters. The US military has one, count it, ONE goddamn company of urban operations rescue/recovery guys on the MTOE, and they’re in what the bureaucrats self-servingly define as the “National Capital Region”, like it’s the only place we’d ever need them. There ought to be at least a battalion of guys trained to do that work for every major metro area, along with stockpiled equipment. Having the “combat bot” based on demolition robots would be a smart move, because that way you get lots of operators trained to use them effectively, and probably in ways you can’t even imagine from here…
@ Dogwalker;
I tried a couple of times to point out how poorly pistols deal with waste heat from gas systems, but since I kept getting bumped I’ll settle for just saying, “F**k Hyvor”.
clear ether
eon
It’s a problem, but it’s more of a problem for profesional shooters, that shoot hundred of rounds/day, than soldiers or cops. No pistol ever will become red hot firing in battle. The standard load of a US soldier, when he cares to carry a pistol, is three magazines.
These, IE, are two reviews regarding the CCP:
“Heat build-up is a non-issue when it comes to a real-world, two-mag fight for your life. For an average 50-100 round practice session, heat still isn’t a major concern. Shooting a 2-day concealed carry class with the CCP might be a challenge, however.”
“after 25 or so rounds, the front end of the frame is uncomfortably hot to the touch. After 75 rounds, I had to put on a glove, as I could not properly grip the pistol.”
With HKP7M8 one magazine would do it, hence the need for a clip-on heat shield inside the front top of the trigger guard.
With Steyr GB80, one magazine would heat the slide enough that you didn’t dare touch it without a Chimere glove on.
Like the double-action auto, it’s an ingenious solution to a non-existent problem.
cheers
eon
The HK P7 had a metal frame. Metal transfers heat. The heat shield was a piece of plastic. Actual frames are already made of that.
In the Steyr GB the slide WAS the gas cylinder. In the P7 and CCP isn’t.
Let’s not mistake the problems of a gun with the problems of the system.
(and, BTW, the Steyr GB is not gas delayed, it’s a blowback that uses gasses as recoil buffer).
In reality there is a gas delay system that practically doesn’t have effects on the temperature of the weapon, the one used on the Grossfuss Sturmgewehr. But it’s not easy to implement on a pistol.
My point exactly.
cheers
eon
Trying to apply a lot of these systems to a handgun just doesn’t make sense. It’s pointless, when the recoil-operated ones like the Browning tilting barrel just work. Unless you’re trying to get around a patent, which are all well out of date, it’s pointless. A gas-operated pistol, these days, simply boils down to a designer saying “I can do this…”, and that’s really about it.
In my opinion, the Browning Hi-Power was the apotheosis of pistol-action design. Everything since that point has merely been elaboration; the Glock simply combines the better characteristics of the Roth-Steyr trigger mechanism to the Browning barrel and breech.
If you have to do gas-operated in order to get the thing to work, as in the Desert Eagle or Mars pistols, odds are that you’re trying to take a pistol into carbine territory, and should desist in your delusional attempts at squaring the circle.
@ kirk
Gas operated and gas delayed are different things.
Gas operated on a pistol doesn’t make sense.
Gas delayed has several advantages over the browning tilting barrel. The main one, from a military point of view, is that’s cheap. Not blowback cheap, but almost blowback cheap. If it does the same job, the cheaper, the better.
@Dogwalker,
Please elaborate on the “several advantages” of gas-delayed systems.
I don’t see any, whatsoever. The heat management alone says “Yeah, this idea sucks for a pistol format…”
I had a friend who was a big proponent of the Steyr GB, and I identified a major issue for that design paradigm after we had to let his pistol cool for a tactically considerable amount of time before it could be either put away in its case or holstered. First time we took that thing out and put a bunch of rounds through it, we didn’t pay attention and essentially melted it into the synthetic pistol “rug” he had for it, before he found someone to make him a holster. You’ve missed out, if you haven’t had to delicately scrape melted faux sheepskin off of the crackle finish on those pistols… He also got second-degree burns from the initial holster design he commissioned, not noticing how hot the damn thing had gotten, and before realizing that a heat shield was a necessity in the design.
I’m not seeing too many real “advantages” to gas-operated pistols in any format, TBH. Figure out how to remove the whole “heat” issue? Maybe; that’s a level of outright “magitek” we just haven’t reached, as of yet.
@ kirk
It’s inherently more accurate (fixed barrel).
It works better with silencers (fixed barrel).
it manages recoil better.
It’s self regulating (the hotter the round, the stronger the delay).
It’s potentially more durable (less moving masses, the moving ones are buffered).
The Steyr GB is not a gas delayed system. Is a blowback that uses gasses as a recoil buffer. In the Steyr GB specifically the slide (that’s metallic and metal conducts heat) IS the gas cylinder. So it heats up. In the Walther CCP, in the H&K P7 or in the Laugo Alien, the slide IS NOT the cylinder. Let’s not mistake the problems of a specific gun with the problems of the system. ESPECIALLY if that gun DOESN’T EVEN USE that system.
The GB used fundamentally the same system as the VGI-5 carbine. So what was that?
cheers
eon
Also the Volkssturmgewehr 1-5 was a blowback. Infact the slide/bolt of that gun weighted 1.4 kg.
For a comparison, the bolt of the Grossfuss Sturmgewehr, that used a real gas delay system, weighted 0.8 kg, for the same cartridge.
And the bolt of the StG 45(M), that used roller delay (that’s more effective in delaying the opening than gas delay) weighted 0.48kg.
That ratio is still valid. That’s why gas delay is not used on rifle caliber rounds. The required bolt would still be too heavy. But many full size 9mm semiautos ALREADY have a slide heavy enough to work as pure blowbacks, they only need a slight delay/ slowing down of the slide, not really to delay opening, but to prevent the slide to impact the frame at a too high speed, damaging it.
Think that might have been made for planes, in some way… As oppose jumping, from.
Gliders… Something. Odd, good, in away, but sort of odd.
@Dogwalker,
How, precisely, do you define “gas delayed” as opposed to “gas operated”? The distinction you’re using here is not clear to me. The way I’d define it would be that the pistols using gas to keep the mechanism closed are “gas delayed”, and the few that work like other gas-operated weapons are merely a part of the larger set of pistols using gas-actuation in their mechanisms. Either way, it’s combustion gas doing the work of either running the action or keeping the slide open.
I’d class the GB, the P7, and several others as “gas-delayed”. Desert Eagle and the ancient Mars? Gas-operated. I’m not really seeing much objective difference between the P7 and the GB, other than how the piston is arranged.
And this one discussed here recently;
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/kevin-a-czech-pocket-pistol-with-a-weird-delay-trick/
As I said at the time, it was out-evolved by the Browning-type Ruger LCP. In fact, if you look at the array of “micro-sized .380s” out there today, you’ll find many with Colt-Browning (or more exactly Petter)-type locking systems and essentially none with anything like the “Kevin” setup.
As the old saying goes, if nobody else does it that way, there’s usually a very good reason.
cheers
eon
Yeah. It has to be seen what the very good reason is, among a wide range of possibilities.
It’s quite simple. Gas operated uses the pressure of the gasses to open the action.
Gas delayed uses the pressure of the gasses to keep the action closed.
If you push a rod into the barrel of a gas operated weapon (AR15, IE), it doesn’t open, because it can’t be opened by recoil alone. It needs the pressure of the gas. If you push one into the barrel of a gas delayed weapon, it opens, because it’s opened by recoil. The gas can only delay the opening.
The difference between the Steyr GB and the P7 is that the, in the Steyr GB, like in the Volkssturmgewehr 1-5, the gasses are spilled halfway through the barrel, to fill a relatively large space.
That assembly can’t delay the opening of the action in any reasonable way. It doesn’t exist a “delay” that has yet to start acting when the bullet already passed trough half the barrel.
The Steyr GB and the Volkssturmgewehr 1-5 are not gas delayed actions, they are “gas buffered” actions. The real function of the gas piston is to help the recoil spring to slow down the slide before the impact with the frame.
In the P7 the gasses are spilled just in front of the neck of the case, and they have to fill a relatively small space. THAT delays the opening.
Infact, IE, to fire the same cartridge, the bolt of the Volkssturmgewehr 1-5 (gas buffered) weighted 1.4kg. Because only mass delayed the opening of the action. The bolt of the Grossfuss Sturmgewehr, that used a real gas delay system, weighted 0.8 kg, because there gas helped delaying the opening of the action.
Other than the difference in operating mechanism, the piston arrangement is precisely why the Steyr GB becomes hot way faster than the P7, so it’s relevant to the discussion. Touching the gas cylinder is not the same than touching something that’s only loosely linked to the gas cylinder.
As already said , also the P7 and CCP become hot faster than a Browning action. BUT, a military gun, realistically, only needs to rapidly fire three magazines without burning the operator (and, already, how many times that happened in the last 40 years?). What happens after the 60th round, doesn’t really count.
Question to the assembled firearms Knights of the nerd-table:
So I’m thinking from the thread that I really should pay far closer attention to aircraft weapon designs… But this has, essentially? a 2-piece bolt, yes? The vertical sliding unit closes the breech and imparts the firing pin impulse to the primer of the chambered cartridge. The horizontal sliding portion extracts, ejects, and feeds the cartridges.
This reminds me a good deal of the obscure Cold War-era Koborov prototype bull-pup, the TKB-022. The reciprocating gas-system parts have a sort of rammer to extract the just-fired empty cartridge, shunt it back to an ejection tube, and then strip-off and chamber the top 7.62x39mm round, while a vertical moving unit seals the breech, and then imparts the hammer blow to the primer…
Any time I see cam tracks like this here Krieghoff… I’m thinking they thought of the Madsen and said “Halte mein Bier.”
“(…)Koborov (…)”
Unless intentional show of disdain: Korobov https://modernfirearms.net/en/assault-rifles/russia-assault-rifles/korobov-tkb-022-eng/
For another example of Soviet bull-pup design with aft-placed magazine well, see Tornado https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/Smerch