One of Paul Mauser’s lifelong projects was the design of a semiautomatic rifle for the German military. He would go through a multitude of different designs searching for something that would be sufficiently reliable, durable, and simple – and ultimately he would never fulfill the goal. But his efforts left us a trail of very interesting prototypes!
In 1898 he conceived this sort of flapper-locked system, on a short recoil action. It is actually a pretty clever system mechanically, but apparently lacked sufficient protection against an out of battery detonation. In 1901, one of the C98 rifles of this pattern (but not this specific gun) suffered an out of battery detonation while Mauser was firing it, and the explosion broke his finger and took his left eye. After this experience, Mauser would not give up on his search for a military selfloader, but his subsequent designs (like the long-recoil C02 pattern) would have a much greater emphasis on mechanical safety.
Ian, at first Mozilla would not let me connect to your site because it is insecure ( Self signed security certificate).
I approved an exception and got through.
It’s something you might want to take a look at.
And I’m glad the migration went so well, I look forward to the comments from those who are better informed than I.
Same incidence with me. Obviously I tell Mozilla that all it´s okey with this site, but you have something wrong
For me also connection insecure, tried Firefox and Chromium, both show site insecure.
I guess that the cause is that the cert is registered for forgottenweapons.com, and the site URL is https://www.forgottenweapons.com. A starcert would fix that, registered for *.forgottenweapons.com
Cool rifle indeed.
Ditto. I’d suggest Let’s Encrypt if going for a free certificate. Definitely better than self-signed.
We just transitioned the site to a new and upgraded server. The initial SSL was self-signed due to DNS needing to point to the new server before we could install a Let’s Encrypt cert. This has now been done and you should not see any future issues.
Thanks Bruce, chain of trust looks good now!
“suffered an out of battery detonation while Mauser was firing it, and the explosion broke his finger and took his left eye”
This reminded me about Komarov The Cosmonaut
as they both become victims of malfunctions of technology of future, Komarov sadly fatal victim.
Citing fragment from link
For the forerunners it is always more difficult. They tread the unknown paths and these paths are not straight, they have sharp turns, surprises and dangers. But anyone who takes the pathway into orbit never wants to leave it. And no matter what difficulties or obstacles there are, they are never strong enough to deflect such a man from his chosen path. While his heart beats in his chest, a cosmonaut will always continue to challenge the universe. Vladimir Komarov was one of the first on this treacherous path.
“broke his finger and took his left eye”
S.V.Vladimirov (best known as designer of KPV) died during work in 1956, he was struck by part of machine gun of own design, which was under pressure of spring
I use Brave as a browser and I get that security error from time to time. It eventually loads, with no input from me, so some computer smart guy will have to explain it.
Ian has something in common with Paul Mauser!
As George Nonte once remarked, we who love firearms and use them sometimes for get that they are designed to be dangerous. And that at times, they can act a lot like an irritated rattler if we’re not careful. This was obviously a case where an experimental arm did something the designer didn’t anticipate, which happens more often than you might think.
There’s a reason we don’t issue “experimental” anything until it’s past the stage of having an “X” in front of its stock number.
“This was obviously a case where an experimental arm did something the designer didn’t anticipate, which happens more often than you might think.”
There is always risk with technology for future of malfunctions, which probably manifest most heavily in aviation, take for example that BELL MODEL 1 Bomber Destroyer
One was last due to testing, which showed that this aeroplane indeed is good in going into spin, but also can become unable to go out…
“act a lot like an irritated rattler if we’re not careful”
When Imperial Russia was looking for self-loading rifle before Great War, they allowed any design, foreign or domestic, but required to deliver 10 examples for testing (to prevent works but require unusually skilled tuning) and demonstration fire done by designer of that self-loading rifle (which should be inducement for providing safety of operation).
“There’s a reason we don’t issue “experimental” anything until it’s past the stage of having an “X” in front of its stock number. ”
So, generally speaking there haste is not advisable, however sometime there is no another choice. For example take Me 262 of Luftwaffe or more precisly Jumo 004B:
which indeed offered high flight performance, but also has very limited service life (25 hours or so; for comparison Rolls-Royce Welland needed overhaul after 180 hours)
One of the Me 262 prototypes had a conventional piston engine in the nose and during a test flight, both wing-mounted turbines crapped out. The prototype then came in for a landing using the power of its prop engine…
Looking at this rifle thru video I do not see anything of risk to shooter other than prevention of FP protrusion before full lock up. What helps is very short time/travel for locking to act.
It helps that the charging handle does NOT reciprocate with the bolt… I found the inner workings from US Patent 639421.